Demiano D. Tinsley, s/k/a Demanio D. Tinsley v. CW ( 1998 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Bumgardner
Argued at Salem, Virginia
DEMIANO DECIPE TINSLEY,
S/K/A DEMANIO DECIPE TINSLEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 0184-97-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON
MAY 5, 1998
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY
David V. Williams, Judge
Philip G. Gardner (Gardner, Gardner, Barrow &
Sharpe, P.C., on briefs), for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney
General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General;
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General,
on brief), for appellee.
Demanio Tinsley (defendant) appeals his convictions for
maliciously shooting into an occupied vehicle, in violation of
Code § 18.2-154, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony,
in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1, and second degree murder, in
violation of Code § 18.2-32. He contends a bullet "jacket" found
in the body of the victim was improperly admitted into evidence
because it was not authenticated. We hold the jacket was
properly authenticated, and we affirm.
The parties are fully conversant with the record in this
case and because this opinion carries no precedential value, no
recitation of the facts is necessary.
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
In order to authenticate a piece of evidence "[t]he
Commonwealth is not required to exclude every conceivable
possibility of substitution, alteration, or tampering. All that
is required in order to establish a chain of custody is that the
Commonwealth's evidence 'afford reasonable assurance that the
exhibits at trial are the same and in the same condition as they
were when first obtained.'" Pope v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114,
121, 360 S.E.2d 352, 356 (1987) (quoting P. Smith v.
Commonwealth, 219 Va. 554, 559, 248 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1978)).
This determination lies within the "broad discretion" of the
trial court, and we will reverse only upon an abuse of that
discretion. See Crews v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 115, 118-19,
442 S.E.2d 407, 409 (1994).
The evidence in question is the jacket of a bullet found in
the victim's body after the body had been autopsied, embalmed,
buried, exhumed and re-opened. The jacket was overlooked during
the first autopsy due to excessive blood in the chest cavity. A
forensic scientist testified that the jacket was fired from the
same gun defendant used to shoot the victim. While it was clear
the body had been handled by the mortician prior to burial, the
trial court held the jacket admissible because it was reasonable
to infer the jacket had not been inserted into the body between
the two autopsies.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358
- 2 -
S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987), and keeping in mind the deferential
standard of review, we hold the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting the jacket into evidence. The
Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to show the bullet
offered at trial was the same one found in the body, in the same
condition, and the suggestion of tampering or substitution of
evidence was unreasonable.
Because we find that the bullet jacket was properly admitted
into evidence, we affirm defendant's convictions.
Affirmed.
- 3 -