D.J.C., 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.
The court affirmed the juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for burglary and theft, holding that fingerprint evidence found on the entry window and bedroom items was sufficient to support conviction where the victim testified she did not know the juvenile and had not given permission for his presence.
Fingerprint evidence found on an entry window and items inside a victim's bedroom is sufficient to support a burglary and theft conviction when the victim testifies she did not know the juvenile and never gave permission for his presence.
[1] Fingerprint evidence on entry window and interior items is sufficient to establish burglary and theft where victim testifies she did not know defendant and never granted…
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 juvenile was charged with burglary and theft of a private residence. The victim testified she did not know the juvenile and had never given him perm…
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 Fingerprint Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency based on jury findings that the juvenile committed burglary and theft.
Where the victim testified that she did not know the juvenile and had never given him permission to visit her home, evidence that the juvenile’s fingerprints were found on the entry window and on items inside the bedroom of victim’s private residence is sufficient to support the conviction. Roberts v. State, 268 So. 2d 578 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). See also Parrish v. State, 366 So. 2d 530 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Where the only objection to admission of the fingerprint evidence at trial is on grounds of relevancy, the motion to suppress the fingerprint standards is not properly preserved for appeal. See, e. g., Harkins v. State, 380 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (where identity is an issue, relevant evidence is admissible); Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla.3d DCA 1974) (evidence admissible when identity is major issue). See also Alvarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (Case No. 79-1546, opinion filed May 27, 1981) (failure to object at trial to introduction of materials sought to have been suppressed in pretrial motion fails to preserve issue for review); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) (failure to renew an objection at trial contemporaneously with admission of the contested evidence constitutes a waiver of a right to appellate review even though issues of constitutional dimension are claimed).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosario v. State, 406 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered upon the revocation of Rosario’s probation. We affirm on the ground that the fingerprint evidence was sufficient to support the finding that he had committed a subsequent burglary.1 See D.J.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 830 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); M.R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Dargans v. State, 259 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). The trial judge orally announced findings that the defendant had also viol…
-
Sims v. State, 402 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…band as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. Because, however, the record shows that no objection to the introduction of the cannabis on this ground was raised at the trial, we are unable to consider this issue on appeal. D. J. C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Alvarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see generally Caster v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978). As to this point, which is the only one which concerns the underl…
Authorities Cited
- Mueller v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 380 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Roberts v. State, 268 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Lincoln R. Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Parrish v. State, 366 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Alvarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)