WILLIAM SUMMERSON, 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 held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant's fingerprint was made at the time of the crime.
The defendant's fingerprint was found on a file cabinet drawer in a private area of a dentist's office that was broken into. The defendant claimed he …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
Following a non-jury trial, William Sum-merson was adjudged guilty of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. He now appeals.
A dentist’s office was broken into and certain items were stolen from a file cabinet. Summerson’s fingerprint was found on a lower drawer of the file cabinet located in a part of the office not ordinarily used by patients.
Summerson testified that he had gone to the dentist to have a tooth extracted four months prior to the crime alleged, and had been allowed to rest on a couch close to the file cabinet when he incurred heavy bleeding. Although he indicated that his position on the couch was such as to bring his hands in possible proximity to the cabinet, he never testified that he actually touched the cabinet.
On appeal Summerson contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against him. He relies on Ivey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 611, and Tirko v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 388. Ivey v. State, supra, concerns prints found in a public place and therefore is inapplicable to the instant case.
The dentist testified that he could not remember ever having seen Summerson or having treated him and that he had no record on Summerson as a patient.
*595Sttmmerson’s fingerprint was found in an obscure, private part of the office to which the public was generally denied access. Under the circumstances of this case, the evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding by the trier of facts that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed. See Tirko v. State, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…action and rested on a couch close to the cabinet while recovering from the extraction did not entitle the defendant to a judgment of acquittal, where the dentist testified he had no recollection of the defendant being a patient. Summerson v. State, 200 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).9 But Sorey presented no testimony to explain how his prints got on the Burger King envelope at a time other than the time of the crime. The State, having shown the envelope to be in a place inaccessible to a member of the public…
-
Williams v. State, 308 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…d. (Tirko v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1962, 138 So. 2d 388) The State argues, however, that there is a distinct difference between fingerprints found in a private place and fingerprints found in a public place. Citing Summerson v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1967, 200 So. 2d 594, the State asserts that it has a greater burden where the fingerprints are found in a public place. Superficially, this distinction makes a bit' of sense. It would appear more likely that an accused could have left his fingerprints prior to the crim…
-
L.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…during the prior burglary. We conclude that the victim’s testimony that she cleaned the sill between the time of the two burglaries negates the juvenile’s suggestion that the prints were made by the juvenile at some earlier time. Summerson v. State, 200 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). See also Sorey. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. . Section 810.07 provides: Prima facie evidence of intent. — In a trial on the charge of burglary, proof of the entering of such structure or conveyance at any time stealthil…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- 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)