Porter v. State

• Decision Date: 21 June 1982
• Docket Number: No. 63914,63914
• Citation: 292 S.E.2d 529,162 Ga.App. 661
• Parties: PORTER et al. v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 529

292 S.E.2d 529

162 Ga.App. 661

PORTER et al. v. The STATE.

No. 63914.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 21, 1982.

Dwight L. Thomas, Decatur, for appellants.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, John Turner, Benjamin H. Oehlert, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Defendants Porter and Mitchell, along with another, were indicted for the offense of burglary of a parking garage. These two defendants were tried together, found guilty and sentenced to serve a term of 10 years, respectively. Their joint motion for new trial was filed, heard and denied. Defendants appeal. Held :

1. The first enumeration of error is concerned with an alleged error in admitting the testimony of a state crime laboratory expert in which it is contended that no chain of custody was shown with reference to certain paint samples removed from a stolen safe and an automobile trunk. The defendants contend that these samples were delivered to the laboratory for comparison purposes and remained in the microanalysis work area for approximately four days until analyzed and four other microanalysts were employed in the same work area, thus being accessible to other employees so as to be subject to tampering, dilution, contamination, intermingling or switching during the time they were on the workbench. However, there was no positive showing that these samples were tampered with, diluted, contaminated, intermingled, switched or otherwise interfered with during the time they were on the microanalyst's workbench. In the absence of such a showing the mere possibility of interference, accompanied only by suspicion is not sufficient to declare that the chain of custody was inadequate. Dent v. State, 243 Ga. 854, 855(3), 257 S.E.2d 241; Speight v. State, 159 Ga.App. 5, 8-9(4), 282 S.E.2d 651; Thompson v. State, 154 Ga.App. 704, 705(1), 269 S.E.2d 474). It thus appears that a proper chain of custody was shown, even if the defendants were correct in the assertion that the trial court erred in declaring the paint samples were unique and not subject to a chain of custody under Brownlee v. State, 155 Ga.App. 875, 878(6), 273 S.E.2d 636 (a bent coat hanger), and Wood v. State, 159 Ga.App. 221, 222(2), 283 S.E.2d 79 (a spent bullet). It is noted here that in the defendants' brief they fail to point out where in the record such a ruling was made on the part of the trial court. A chain of custody was shown as demonstrated above, and this court will not reverse the trial court even if a wrong reason was assigned for the allowance of the testimony and paint samples in evidence. There is no merit in this complaint.

2. Within a maximum of six hours after the parking garage closed for the business day, the safe, which was a stolen article, was found in the possession of the defendants. Recent possession when coupled with other circumstantial evidence connecting the parties to the criminal act is sufficient to convict. See Teague v. State, 160 Ga.App. 774, 775(1), (...