An adequate foundation for the admission of proffered tangible evidence must contain verification that the object was involved in the matter at hand and that the condition of the object is substantially the same. People v Prast (On Rehearing), 114 Mich App 469, 490 (1982). In evaluating the foundation presented, the trial court should consider the nature of the object, the circumstances surrounding the preservation and custody of the object, and the possibility of an individual tampering with the object while it is in custody. Id.
B.Break in the Chain of Custody
A court is not required to automatically exclude proffered evidence because of a break in the chain of custody of the evidence. People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 405 (2001). A break in the chain of custody of the object affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. People v Ramsey, 89 Mich App 260, 267 (1979). It is not an abuse of discretion to admit evidence where there are alleged deficiencies concerning the collection and preservation of the evidence as long as there is no missing vital link in the chain of custody or there is no sign of tampering with the evidence. See People v Muhammad, 326 Mich App 40, 59 (2018).