FRED IVEY, 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.
The court held that fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient if the print could have been made at a time other than during the commission of the crime.
The State's sole evidence linking the appellant to a breaking and entering was a fingerprint found on a glass jalousie from the store's front door. Th…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Fred Ivey appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence of five years in the State penitentiary for breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit felony and grand larceny. The record reveals that the only evidence offered by the State to prove the identity of the appellant as the culprit was the appellant’s fingerprint on a glass jalousie which was taken from the front door of the store building.
The State concedes that this case is governed by the principle set forth in Tirko v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 388, that fingerprint evidence must meet the requirement that the circumstances must be such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed. This requirement was not met in this case because the print was in a public place and the record does not preclude that it might have been placed there some time before the crime,
The defect is not cured by the fact that appellant stated to a policeman that he had never been in Florida City where the building was located nor is it cured by the testimony of the owner that he had never seen the appellant there.
Other points presented in the brief are without merit. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64 — 5912 is affirmed. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64-5913 is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…re is no other evidence to show that the prints were made at the time of the crime, see, e.g., Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1971), courts must conclude that a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. For example, in Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), evidence that the defendant’s fingerprint was found on a glass jalousie on the front door of a store building was held insufficient to support a jury finding of [*813] guilt “because the print was in a public place and the record…
-
Williams v. State, 247 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1971)…tility room where he had forced an entry into the house. But this showed only that he had been there, not when he had been there. See Bryant v. State, 235 So. 2d 721 (Fla.1970); Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1970); Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1965); Tirko v. State, 138 So. 2d 388 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1962). Pubic hair taken from the victim’s bed had microscopic characteristics identical to appellant’s pubic hair, but this is not conclusive as to identity. The ripple-soled shoe-p…
-
Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…the time, or even a time period, when the prints, assuming them to be Wilkerson’s, were placed on the pieces of glass, and the front door of a city store is certainly a place readily accessible to the general public. In Ivey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 611, the 3rd District Court had under review a conviction for burglary and grand larceny where the “evidence offered by the State to prove the identity of the appellant as the culprit was the appellant’s fingerprint on a glass jalousie which was taken f…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)