State v. Straub

                                    630

Argued and submitted July 16, 2020, affirmed September 15, 2021, petition for
               review denied January 20, 2022 (

)


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                   BRIAN SCOTT STRAUB,
                       aka Brian Straub,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                  Umatilla County Circuit Court
                     17CR74305; A169484
                                

   Daniel J. Hill, Judge.
   Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause
for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief
Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                                 631

         PER CURIAM
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of
one count of supplying contraband, ORS 162.185, and possession of heroin, ORS 475.854, raising four assignments of
error. We affirm.
        Defendant’s first and second assignments of error
raise related challenges to the “chain of custody” of the
evidence ultimately tested and identified as heroin by the
crime lab. A challenge to the “chain of custody” is simply a
challenge to the authentication of evidence under Oregon
Evidence Code (OEC) Rule 901(1) which provides:
   “The requirement of authentication or identification as a
   condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence
   sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
   is what its proponent claims.”
         As a general rule, when something is taken from a
defendant for the purpose of testing, authentication must be
established through testimony by the persons who had possession or custody of the item taken. State v. Summers, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2016).
The trial court has discretion to determine how much is
required under the circumstances to establish that “there
is a reasonable probability that the evidence has not been
changed in important respects.” Id. at 421-23. We review the
trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. Id.
         As we recently noted, “the requirements for authentication in Oregon will depend on the particular circumstances and the nature of the evidence that is offered.”
State v. Sassarini, 

, 

 (2019).
Accordingly, a court may vary the requirements for authentication where the “ ‘exhibits are of a questionable type, or if
the environment from whence they come suggests reasons
that would cause the court to have more than a mere captious doubt about the authenticity of the exhibits, or about
their identity, or about changes in their condition.’ ” State v.
Ruggles, 

, 

, adh’d to as modified on recons, 

, 

 (2007), rev den,

 (2008) (quoting State v. Weber, 

, 

 (2001)).
632                                            State v. Straub

         Having reviewed the record in this case, while certainly more could have been established as to the handling
of the evidence at issue, the trial court determined that was
a topic for cross-examination, not a barrier to admissibility.
We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the trial court
abused its discretion in so concluding.
         Defendant’s third and fourth assignments of error
challenge the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment
of acquittal. On review of a motion for judgment of acquittal,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state
to determine whether any rational trier of fact, accepting
reasonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices,
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. State v. Walker, 

, 

(2014). Here, in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence was legally sufficient to send the matter to the factfinder, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion
for judgment of acquittal.
        Affirmed.