M. R., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A fingerprint found on the inner surface of a jalousie window slat at the point of entry to a residence, where the juvenile had no prior contact with the property, is sufficient evidence to identify the juvenile as the perpetrator when identity is the sole disputed issue.
[1] A latent fingerprint found on the inner surface of a window slat at the point of entry to a residence, where the defendant had no prior contact with the property, is suff…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA private residence was burglarized and items stolen. Police found a latent fingerprint on a jalousie window slat at the break-in point. The juvenile …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency for burglary and grand theft upon a holding that in this case where the identity of the perpetrator was the sole disputed issue (1) the evidence that the juvenile’s fingerprint was found on the inner surface of a jalousie window slat at the break-in point of a private residence with which the juvenile had no prior contact or relation was, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, see Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1975); Everett v. State, 339 So. 2d 704 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), sufficient to establish that the print was made only at the time the crime was committed and to identify the juvenile as the person who committed the crime, see Tirko v. State, 138 So. 2d 388 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); compare J. C. v. State, 377 So. 2d 731 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); and (2) the juvenile’s testimony that he touched a jalousie slat lying in the yard adjoining the" victim’s home, although raising a hypothesis of innocence, does not bring the juvenile, as he claims, within the ambit of McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1977), in light of evidence, inconsistent with such hypothesis, that the jalousie which the juvenile purportedly touched was [*57] other than the jalousie from which his latent print was removed.1 Affirmed. . The victim testified she returned home after a day at work at 5:30 p. m. and found the break-in. The police arrived shortly thereafter and removed the latent print from a jalousie slat at the victim’s home. The juvenile testified that at 4:30 p. m. he went to visit his friend who lived next door to the victim and that, while there, he handled a jalousie slat. He remained with his friend until 6:00 p. m. Given this testimony, the trial judge was clearly justified in discounting the juvenile’s apparent hypothesis that the jalousie slat he touched in his friend’s yard was replaced in the victim’s home before 5:30 p. m. and was one and the same as the slat from which the latent print was removed. Needless to say, the trial judge could also have concluded that the peripatetic slat in the yard was much like the unicorn in the garden.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ould have been made only at the time the crime was committed is to be made by the fact-finder, Roberts v. State, 268 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), provided that the court, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, M. R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), has first determined that a reasonable-minded jury could find the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Interest of G. B. S., 417 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 197…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…nd theft upheld); Riguad v. State, 404 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to link the defendant to a larceny and to negate a claim that a third party stole the property; grand larceny conviction upheld); M.R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (state’s evidence, including fingerprint evidence, deemed sufficient to link the juvenile to a burglary and grand theft, and to negate defendant’s explanation at trial as to how his fingerprint was placed on a certain jalousie sla…
-
Dudley v. State, 511 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…33 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 909, 104 S.Ct. 1690, 80 L.ED.2d 164 (1984); Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 964, 101 S.Ct. 2036, 68 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); Francis v. State, 58 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1951); M.R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 App. at 324 n. 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) and cases collected (Hubbart, J., dissenting).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Primus Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1975)
- Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Neal v. Robert A. Fleming Contractors, Inc., 138 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Tirko v. State, 138 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Everett v. State, 339 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- J.C. v. State, 377 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)