People v. Blankenship 

(Court opinion withdrawn 9/30/10.) Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Court's inquiry as to whether potential jurors "agreed with" Zehr principles was sufficient to confirm whether they accepted and understood the principles. Although State did not adduce the testimony of every custodian in the chain leading from seizure of drugs to their receipt by ISP lab chemist, State remedied gap in chain of custody by "matching descriptions" method, by testimony of officer and lab chemist; and Defendant did not identify any evidcence of actual tampering or substitution. Defendant, by not disputing ASA's statement of street value of $10, tacitly stipulated to the value. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)