ROBERT LEON HILL, 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.
Robert Leon Hill was convicted of trespass (a lesser charge than the burglary he was charged with) based primarily on his fingerprints found at a crime scene. The court reversed his conviction and probation revocation, finding that circumstantial evidence based solely on fingerprints found in a publicly accessible location is insufficient to establish guilt without additional evidence showing the prints could only have been made at the time of the crime.
A conviction based solely on fingerprints found in a publicly accessible location is insufficient to establish guilt under circumstantial evidence standards. The State must show that prints could have been made only at the time the crime was committed. Hill's trespass conviction and probation revocation are reversed.
[1] Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
[2] A fingerprint found in a location accessible to the public, without additional evidence, is insufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for circumstantial evidence convictions in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill was charged with burglary of an antiques store located in a house accessible via a public alley. A burglar broke a window facing the alley to ent…
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
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
Charged with burglary, Robert Leon Hill was convicted of trespass as a lesser charge. On the basis of that offense, the trial court found that Hill had violated his probation and ordered it revoked. We reverse.
The State alleged that Hill burgled an antiques store in Dunedin. The store was located in an old house, and the burglar apparently entered by breaking a window that faced an alley behind the house. Hill’s thumbprint and partial palm print were found on a piece of glass resting on the ground at the scene. But the State’s witnesses could not say when the prints had been left or whether they had been left on the inside of the windowpane or the outside. Pedestrians were known to use the alley, and there were no fences restricting access from the alley to the store. Hill testified that one night as he walked down the alley on his way home from work, he paused behind the store to relieve himself and leaned his hand against the window as he did so.
Thus, the only evidence pointing to Hill as the culprit was the circumstance that his fingerprints were found at the scene. To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989). Consistent with that rule, a fingerprint left in a location accessible by the public, without more, is insufficient to establish the identity of the culprit. “Unless there is other evidence of identity, the state must show that the prints could have been made only at the time the crime was committed.” Mutcherson v. State, 696 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citations omitted). The State made no such showing in this case.
The State argues that this window was not accessible to the general public, but the evidence demonstrated otherwise. Specifically, the State’s position on this point is negated by photographs depicting the broken window and by the store owner’s testimony regarding pedestrian traffic in the alley. The State also contends that the fingerprints were consistent with someone pulling the broken glass out of the frame. This would be true if prints had been left on both sides of the glass. They were not. In sum, the only evidence implicating Hill were the fingerprints, and the State failed to show that the prints could only have been made at the time of the crime. Accordingly, we must reverse. See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla.2006) (reversing murder and robbery convictions in circumstantial evidence case where state failed to prove defendant left fingerprint and hair at scene during commission of crime rather than during earlier, innocent visits to premises); Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). The State does not dispute Hill’s assertion that this theory applies equally to the trespassing conviction as it would to a burglary conviction.
We reverse Hill’s trespass conviction and remand for a discharge on this offense. We also reverse the revocation of probation, which was based solely on the trespassing conviction, and we remand for Hill’s reinstatement to probation.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
LaROSE, J„ and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raidel Cordero-Artigas v. State, 75 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…of the shooting. The State failed to present evidence that was inconsistent with Mr. Jaramillo’s reasonable explanation that he helped the victim’s nephew cut boxes the previous day using the nephew’s knife. Id. at 258. Similarly, in Hill v. State, 973 So. 2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), we held that the State’s only evidence against the defendant, his fingerprints found on a piece of broken window glass outside the burglary scene, was insufficient to convict him because the State presented no evidence th…
-
Abel Miranda v. State, 113 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…3 So. 2d 475, 482 (Fla.2006). Moreover, absent other evidence of identity, the State must establish that the circumstantial evidence of Miranda’s guilt — his blood-DNA — was left at the scene at the time of the murder. See id. at 483; Hill v. State, 973 So. 2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Mutcherson v. State, 696 So. 2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); cf. Burkett, 992 So. 2d at 851-52 (distinguishing Ballard based on footprint evidence establishing that defendant had been at the scene of the murder at or near…
-
C.P.C. v. State, 179 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ypothesis of innocence. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989). “Consistent with that rule, a fingerprint left in a location accessible by the public, without more, is' insufficient to establish the identity of the culprit.” Hill v. State, 973 So. 2d 655, 655 (Fla. 2d.DCA 2008). At the adjudicatory hearing, Mr. Paxton acknowledged that he had known C.P.C. for four years and both lived at the same apartment complex. They spent time together and, on one occasion, C.P.C. visited Mr. Paxton’s apartment…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2006)
- Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Gamble v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Mutcherson v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)