[Cit.]" Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). Where there is only enough material to perform one test, an independent test is impossible and, thus, admission of the test results does not violate the defendant's due process rights.
See id. Furthermore, the fact that the evidence was destroyed between the time of the testing and the offer of the test results in evidence did not render those results inadmissible. Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). The trial court did not err in admitting the results.
[Cit.]" Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 198 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). The chain of custody was satisfactorily established in this case.
In Williams v. State, 153 Ga. App. 421, 422 (3) ( 265 S.E.2d 341) (1980), the person in the crime lab to whom the vial of drugs was turned over did not testify and the witness could not relate when or by whom the vial was brought to the lab. Even so, the state was not required to show the substance was guarded every minute and, in the absence of evidence of tampering, the chain was not broken. Accord Strong v. State, 161 Ga. App. 123 (1) ( 291 S.E.2d 33) (1982); Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196, 199 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984). What is required is reasonable certainty that the evidence offered at trial is the same as that which was seized and has not been tampered with or substituted for. Strong, supra at p. 124 (1).
As there was only wild speculation of tampering with the powder which was unsupported by the evidence, the exhibit was properly admitted. Spivey v. State, 170 Ga. App. 196 ( 316 S.E.2d 822) (1984); Graham v. State, 152 Ga. App. 233 ( 262 S.E.2d 465) (1979). 7.