Anderson v. State

The state did not have to prove the chain-of-custody of three stolen watches found in the defendant's pocket when he was arrested, since they were non-fungible items, which were readily identifiable.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Andre Anderson appeals his conviction of burglary, contending that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain watches over his chain-of-custody objection. Because watches are non-fungible items that are readily identifiable, the State bore no burden of establishing a chain of custody. Accordingly, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict, Short v. State ,1 the evidence shows that early one evening, a neighbor alerted a homeowner, who was working in his garden, that the neighbor had just witnessed a stranger enter the homeowner’s residence. As the homeowner approached his residence, he heard his wife scream and then saw her exit out the back door; she informed him that an intruder had just escaped out the front door. She had had a clear view of the intruder, upon whom she stumbled when she was returning to the kitchen to continue dinner preparations. She immediately alerted police, who soon arrived but could not locate the intruder in the vicinity. Shortly thereafter, the homeowner saw a man in a nearby schoolyard who fit his wife’s description of the intruder, and the couple again alerted police. An officer brought the man to the homeowner’s wife, who identified him as the intruder. The man, who was Anderson, was arrested and taken to jail.

When arresting Anderson, the officer found three watches in one of Anderson’s pants pockets. Unaware of this circumstance, the homeowner and his wife discovered later that evening that a drawer had been removed from the dresser and left on the floor in their bedroom, from which drawer three watches were missing. When they reported this to police, a detective brought to the couple the three watches that had been removed from Anderson’s person, which the couple identified as the missing watches.

Anderson v. State

The state did not have to prove the chain-of-custody of three stolen watches found in the defendant's pocket when he was arrested, since they were non-fungible items, which were readily identifiable.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report