CARL A. DIXON, JR., 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 fingerprints found in a public place are insufficient for conviction unless the circumstances show they could only have been made during the commission of the crime. However, the presence of stolen goods in the defendant's possession, in addition to fingerprints, can support a conviction.
Fingerprints alone, found in a place open to the public, are insufficient for conviction unless the circumstances indicate they could only have been made during the commission of the crime. However, when combined with other evidence, such as possession of stolen goods, a conviction can be supported.
“A shopper is entitled to touch merchandise without fear that his fingerprints alone will convict him if it is later stolen.”
Establishes the general principle regarding the insufficiency of fingerprints alone in public places for conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFingerprints were found at the scene of a burglary. The defendant's car contained television sets that had been stolen from the burglarized property. …
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.
A shopper is entitled to touch merchandise without fear that his fingerprints alone will convict him if it is later stolen. Where fingerprints are found in a place open to the public, “the circumstances must be such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed.” Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611, 612 (Fla.App.1965). See also Tirko v. State, 138 So.2d 388 (Fla.App.1962). This should not be taken literally to mean that the time of making the print is an element to be proved. It means simply that where a print is left in a place open to the public and there is no other evidence of identity the courts must assume that a defendant was shopping-rather than stealing. Here television sets taken from the property broken and entered were found in Dixon’s car. This adequately supports the inference that he was no mere shopper.
There may have been other evidence of identity visible to the jury but not preserved in the record through failure of the prosecutor to remember that we cannot see the parties.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)…ized and sent to the FBI was returned in substantially the same basic condition, with the exception of necessary alterations for the purpose of testing and identification. This was a sufficient predicate showing chain of custody. See Dixon v. State, 216 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (defendant’s argument that there was an insufficient showing of a chain of custody of his clothes was without merit.) The defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in admitting these challenged items into…
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…the place where the print is found is as accessible to the general public as a store front, the testimony of the store owner that he never saw the defendant at the store does not overcome the insufficiency. Ivey v. State, supra. See Dixon v. State, 216 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (where a print is left in a place open to the public and there is no other evidence of identity, the courts must assume that a defendant was shopping rather than stealing). Similarly, in Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d…1 / 2
-
Knight v. State, 294 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…te, 182 So. 2d 273 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1966). With respect to finger print evidence in particular, it has been held that when a finger print is found in a [*389] place open to the public a defendant will not be convicted on that alone. See Dixon v. State, 216 So. 2d 85 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1968). Finger print evidence must meet the requirement that the circumstances must be such that the print could only have been made at the time of the crime. Wilkerson v. State, 232 So. 2d 217 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1970); Rhoden v. State, 227…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)