For purposes of proving the chain of custody of an item, there are two types of evidence: fungible and non-fungible. Fungible items are those which all look the same and can be easily substituted one for the other. Non-distinct currency is a fungible item. Non-fungible items, such as fingerprints, are unique and easily distinguishable.
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. Ashley v. State, 316 Ga. App. 28 (2012). The State is not required to eliminate every possibility of tampering; it need only show reasonable assurance of the identity of the evidence. Maldonado v. State, 268 Ga. App. 691 (2004). The simple fact "that one of the persons in control of a fungible substance does not testify at trial does not, without more, make the substance or testimony relating to it inadmissible." Collins v. State, 290 Ga. 505 (2012); Gassett v. State, 289 Ga.
App. 792 (2008).
In contrast to fungible evidence, if a piece of tangible evidence is a distinct item that could be recognized from its features from someone who saw it before, that person's testimony identifying the item is sufficient to authenticate it." Phillips v. Williams, 276 Ga. 691 (2003); Roberts v. State, 232 Ga. App. 745 (1998). The chain of custody requirement does not apply to audio and video recordings. Rodriguez- Nova v. State, 295 Ga. 868 (2014).