C.E., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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 juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and petit theft based solely on fingerprint evidence found on a police crime scene van. The appellate court reversed, holding that circumstantial fingerprint evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and the state failed to prove the prints could only have been made at the time of the crime.
The court reversed the adjudication of delinquency because the state failed to prove that the appellant's fingerprints could only have been made at the time the crime was committed. Since the van was accessible to the public in the parking lot and was regularly dispatched throughout the county, there were reasonable alternative explanations for how the fingerprints came to be on the vehicle.
[1] Fingerprints alone are insufficient to sustain a burglary conviction when they are the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime and are found on an object accessi…
[2] A conviction based solely on fingerprints found on an object accessible to the public is improper if the state fails to prove the fingerprints could only have been made a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction only if it is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence, which the state failed to meet in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA portable phone was stolen from a police crime scene van parked in the Broward County Sheriff's office parking lot. Latent fingerprints identified as…
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
This appeal arises from the juvenile appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for burglary and petit theft. The state’s ease against the appellant was based entirely on fingerprint evidence found on the vehicle which was entered and from which a portable phone was stolen. Because we find that the circumstantial evidence was not inconsistent with the appellant’s hypothesis of innocence, we reverse.
Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction only if it is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989). Where fingerprint evidence found at the scene is relied upon to establish identity, the evidence must be such that the print could have been made only when the crime was committed. Tirko v. State, 138 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Tirko was relied on by this court in Knight v. State, 294 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 303 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1974); see also Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 1971) (fingerprint evidence showed only that defendant had been at crime scene, not when he was there). If the state fails to show that the fingerprints could only have been made at the time the crime was committed, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
In the instant case, the vehicle that was the subject of the burglary was a police crime scene van which, at the time of the crime, was parked in the Broward County Sheriffs office parking lot. While only police personnel have permission to enter the lot, it is not gated and anyone going into the sheriffs office can drive into it. The Crime Scene Unit van goes where its name suggests — to respond to various crime scenes in Broward County. It is usually dispatched once a night. The detective in charge of the van testified that it had been washed one to two days before the incident.
When the burglary was discovered, police found that one of the front windows of the van was broken and pushed into the van. Although the window shattered, the pieces were held together by tinting, and the investigators were able to obtain latent fingerprints from the window. It is undisputed that the fingerprints were from the exterior of the window and that they were identified to be the appellant’s prints. The prints consisted of both of the appellant’s palms and some of the individual fingers of each hand. They were the only evidence of the appellant’s guilt.
In defense, the appellant claimed that the state did not establish that the fingerprints could have been left only at the time of the burglary. Since the van was dispatched throughout Broward County on a daily basis, there were other times when the appellant could have leaned against the van with his hands and created the prints on the van. Moreover, the van was parked in an area which was accessible to the public, even though the public were not authorized to go into the parking lot. Where the print is found in a place accessible to the general public, and there is no other evidence to show that the prints were made at the time of the crime, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Sorey, 419 So. 2d at 812; Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
But even if we conclude that the parking lot was not completely accessible to the public, the state still has not overcome its burden. Although the van had been washed “one or two” days earlier, the testimony also showed that the van was usually dispatched once a night. Therefore, the van had been exposed to at least one and perhaps two crime scenes prior to the burglary being committed. There was an opportunity for the appellant’s fingerprints to have been placed on the vehicle when it was out and about the streets of Broward County. Thus, the state cannot prove that the appellant’s fingerprints were made at the time the crime was committed. Based on Tirko, we reverse and direct the trial court to discharge the appellant from his adjudication of delinquency-
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PARIENTE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shores v. State, 756 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ing appellant to the burglary. The victim was not sure, but thought he had purchased the ammunition at a Sports Authority. There was no evidence as to the freshness of the fingerprint, nor any testimony from a fingerprint expert.- In C.E. v. State, 665 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court reversed a conviction based solely on fingerprint evidence found on a vehicle which had been burglarized. We began our opinion by stating: Circumstantial evidence may support a conviction only if it is consiste…
-
Jackson v. State, 180 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2015)…had been left on the box, and when identity in a circumstantial case is established exclusively by fingerprint evidence, there must be evidence that the print could have been left only at the time the crime was committed. Id. (citing C.E. v. State, 665 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). Moreover, the district court noted that when a fingerprint is found on an item that was accessible to the public, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. at 116. The defendant in Shores alleged that his…
-
Mutcherson v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ule evidence, and that the coins in his pockets were inadmissible evidence. We reject all three arguments. First, we recognize that a single fingerprint in a public location is not sufficient to establish the identity of the burglar. C.E. v. State, 665 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lee v. State, 640 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Amell v. State, 438 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Unless there is other evidence of identity, the state must show that the prints could have been made only at the time the crime…
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
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Primus Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1971)
- 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)
- Knight v. State, 294 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Richardo Orta v. Fla. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 303 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1974)