This was sufficient authentication for it to be admissible.Hines v. State , 307 Ga. App. 807, 810 (2), 706 S.E.2d 156 (2011) (citations and punctuation omitted). See id. at 809-810 (2), 706 S.E.2d 156 (2011) (At trial, a sexual assault kit was shown to have the same identification number and bar code as the state crime lab originally assigned to it, and it had the initials of the GBI analyst who worked on the case.
To show a chain of custody adequate to preserve the identity of fungible evidence, the State must prove with reasonable certainty that the evidence is the same as that seized and that there has been no tampering or substitution.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hines v. State, 307 Ga.App. 807, 809(2), 706 S.E.2d 156 (2011). Here, the State established the chain of custody of the DNA evidence.
There was again no evidence of tampering or contamination, and the trial court properly admitted this evidence. See id. See also Hines v. State, 307 Ga.App. 807, 811(2), 706 S.E.2d 156 (2011) (real issue is not fungibility of DNA evidence, but contamination or mishandling). 2.
Kuykendall v. State, 299 Ga. App. 360, 364 ( 683 SE2d 56) (2009). See also Hines v. State, 307 Ga. App. 807, 809 (2) ( 706 SE2d 156) (2011). The record shows that the State was unable to obtain the identity of any clinic employees who performed the abortion on the victim to authenticate that the fetal remains came from the victim.