GARY WHITE, 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.
Gary White appeals his conviction for residential burglary based on a palm print found at the crime scene. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting White's argument that testimony about the palm print's direction and the likelihood of finding physical evidence constituted fundamental error.
The court found no error, and certainly no fundamental error, in Officer Grossman's testimony. Even if error existed, it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the expert latent print examiner testified that the palm print was facing inward, corroborating the lay witness's testimony.
[1] A palm print found on the inside windowsill of a burglarized home, facing inward, can be sufficient evidence to support a conviction for residential burglary.
[2] Testimony from a crime scene investigator regarding the location and orientation of a recovered latent print is permissible to establish the print's relationship to the c…
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“Officer Grossman explained that she marked the direction of the print she lifted from the windowsill to establish its relationship to the window to enable her to specifically identify where it was found at trial.”
Explains the legitimate purpose of the crime scene investigator's testimony about the palm print's direction, distinguishing it from impermissible lay opinion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA home was burglarized while the owner was away. The owner testified she almost never opens her window and that it was closed when she left but open w…
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 Beyond A Reasonable Doubt cases and more on FLexlaw
Gary White (“the defendant”) appeals his conviction and sentence for a residential burglary. We affirm.
At trial, the only evidence linking the defendant to the burglary was a palm print recovered from the inside windowsill of the burglarized home. The owner of the bur*880glarized home testified that she almost never opens her window, and on the day of the burglary, when she left her home, the window was closed. When she returned, however, the window was open and her home had been ransacked.
Robert Williams, an expert in the field of fingerprints and latent print identification, testified that based on his comparison of the palm print recovered from the burglarized home with the inked standard he took of the defendant’s palm, he concluded that the two prints came from the same person.
Officer Grossman, the crime scene investigator, testified as to the location and positioning of the palm print she recovered at the burglarized home, stating that the palm print was found on the inside sill of the window and it was facing inward. Officer Grossman also testified that she is “more likely,” as opposed to “less likely,” to find no physical evidence at a crime scene.
The defendant contends that Officer Grossman’s unobjected-to testimony regarding the direction of the palm print she lifted from the windowsill and the likelihood of her recovering any physical evidence from a crime scene constitutes fundamental error, thereby requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction and sentence. Finding no error, and certainly no fundamental error, we disagree.
The defendant claims that Officer Grossman’s testimony regarding the direction of the palm print constituted an impermissible opinion by a lay witness. The transcript of the proceedings conclusively refutes this assertion. Officer Grossman explained that she marked the direction of the print she lifted from the windowsill to establish its relationship to the window to enable her to specifically identify where it was found at trial. More importantly, Robert Williams, the latent prints examiner, who is an expert, testified that the palm print recovered from the inside windowsill was facing inward. Thus, even though we find no error regarding Officer Grossman’s testimony, any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We reach the same conclusion as to the remaining claimed unob-jected-to error.
Affirmed.