No. 52789-4-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: October 20, 2003 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County ; Docket No: 02-1-04707-8 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 12/13/2002
Counsel for Appellant(s), Lise Ellner, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 2711, Vashon, WA 98070-2711.
Keith Lamont McMorris (Appearing Pro Se), #849956, Stafford Creek Corr Cntr, 191 Constantine Way, Aberdeen, WA 98520.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Kathleen Proctor, Pierce County Prosecuting Atty Ofc, Rm 946, 930 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, WA 98402-2102.
KENNEDY, J.
The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody does not render a physical object inadmissible if the proponent sufficiently identifies the object and establishes that it is in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a tire iron that appellant Keith McMorris used to assault his former girlfriend. Accordingly, we affirm McMorris’s conviction for second degree assault while armed with a deadly weapon.
Facts
A jury found Keith McMorris guilty of first degree criminal trespass, second degree assault with a deadly weapon, and violation of a domestic no contact order following an altercation between McMorris and his former girlfriend. At trial, the State presented evidence that McMorris had forced open the door of his former girlfriend’s apartment and accused her of sleeping with another man. McMorris then attempted unsuccessfully to hit her with a tire iron. McMorris admitted that he had contacted his former girlfriend in violation of a no-contact order and that he had forced his way into her apartment and confronted her. He acknowledged grabbing the woman and spinning her around, causing her to hit her head on the wall, but denied threatening her with the tire iron. Over a defense challenge to the chain of custody, the trial court admitted the tire iron as exhibit 9.
Decision
On appeal, McMorris contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the deadly weapon enhancement. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting exhibit 9, the tire iron, because the State’s witnesses failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody or properly identify the exhibit.
The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of physical evidence, and its ruling will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d 1, 21, 691 P.2d 929 (1984).
To be properly admitted, physical evidence must be satisfactorily identified and in a substantially unaltered condition, considering the nature of the item, the circumstances of preservation and custody, and the likelihood of tampering. State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d at 21. The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody will not render evidence inadmissible if it has been properly identified and shown to be in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed. State v. Picard, 90 Wn. App. 890, 897, 854 P.2d 336 (1990).
Tacoma Police Officer Guardia Garcha testified that exhibit 9 was `a generic kind of tire iron,’ but that it appeared to be the one that he removed from the victim’s apartment and placed into the evidence room. Officer Garcha explained that he maintains control of physical evidence until he delivers it to the property room. Officer John Weinzierl testified that the victim showed him the tire iron that McMorris had used during the assault. Officer Weinzierl then identified exhibit 9 as the tire iron from the victim’s apartment. According to Officer Weinzierl, the tire iron looked like the `specific one’ because it had `the same color and the same dimensions.’ The victim identified the tire iron as the same one that McMorris had picked up in her apartment.
The foregoing identifications and descriptions were sufficiently specific to support a reasonable inference that exhibit 9 was the tire iron used during the assault and that it was in substantially the same condition as when placed into evidence. The proponent of evidence need not identify it with absolute certainty or eliminate every possibility of alteration or substitution. State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d at 21. Minor discrepancies, such as Officer Garcha’s inability to identify with certainty the initials on the property box, affect only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. State v. Campbell, 103 Wn.2d at 21. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tire iron. McMorris has filed a statement of additional grounds for review as allowed by RAP 10.10. He contends that without the admission of the tire iron, the State’s evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree assault. But for the reasons set forth above, the trial court did not err in admitting the tire iron. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence that McMorris attempted to strike the victim with a tire iron was sufficient to support his conviction for second degree assault and the deadly weapon enhancement. See RCW 9A.36.021(c); 9A.04.110(6); 9.94A.602.
Affirmed.
APPELWICK and AGID, JJ., concur.