LINCOLN R. HENDERSON, 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.
Lincoln Henderson was convicted by jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and sentenced to five years in prison. On appeal, he challenged the admission of testimony about a prior arrest used to establish identity and argued insufficient evidence supported his conviction, but the appellate court affirmed.
The court held that testimony regarding the prior arrest was admissible because identity was a major issue in the case and the evidence was relevant to that issue, not merely to show propensity to commit crime. The court also held that competent substantial evidence, including the latent fingerprint evidence, was sufficient to support the conviction.
[1] Evidence of prior arrests or criminal acts is admissible if relevant to a factual issue in the case, unless its sole relevance is to prove a propensity to commit a crime.
[2] Testimony regarding a defendant's prior arrest is admissible when identity is a contested issue in the case.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible, if it is relevant to a factual issue in the case unless its sole relevance is to prove the propensity to commit a crime.”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of evidence regarding prior criminal acts; identity was a major issue making the fingerprint testimony admissible.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson was tried by jury for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. A prosecution witness, a corrections officer, testified tha…
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 Other Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was informed against for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor (petit larceny), tried by jury, found guilty and sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant first urges as error the trial court’s denial of defense counsel’s motion for mistrial based on the prosecution eliciting testimony of a prior arrest of the defendant, which served to infer a propensity on the defendant’s part to engage in criminal conduct.
This point on appeal arises out of the testimony of a prosecution witness that he was a corrections officer working in the jail at booking and fingerprinting and five months prior to the commission of the instant crime, he took the defendant’s “standard” fingerprints.
Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible, if it is relevant to a factual issue in the case unless its sole relevance is to prove the propensity to commit a crime. See Ashley v. State, Fla.1972, 265 So. 2d 685. An examination of the record clearly illustrates that identity was one of the major issues in the case sub judice and thus we find the testimony hereinabove to be relevant and therefore admissible. See Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 276. Defendant secondly contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt in that the only evidence presented which tended to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime was a latent fingerprint from the inside door of the coke machine at the scene of the crime.
After a careful examination of the record, we conclude that there was competent substantial evidence to support the judgment of conviction as to the commission of the offense and the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator thereof. Cf. Dargans v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So. 2d 782.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Price v. State, 538 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…t was perpetrator of the crime the morning following his release, notwithstanding that the testimony also revealed that the defendant had been in custody for an unrelated crime), review denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1988); see also Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (where perpetrator’s fingerprint was found at crime scene, exemplar of defendant’s fingerprints taken at booking on a separate crime admissible to prove identity of defendant as the perpetrator of charged crime). Finally, we note…
-
Evans v. State, 693 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…fendant was the perpetrator of the crime the morning following his release, notwithstanding that the testimony also revealed that the defendant had been in custody for an unrelated crime), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1988); Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (perpetrator's fingerprint found at crime scene, exemplar of defendant's fingerprint taken at booking on a separate crime admissible to prove identity of defendant as the perpetrator of charged crime). . In Suarez v. State, 95 Fl…
-
Ratushinak v. State, 517 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…We conclude that unlike the Adan case, this testimony regarding appellant’s being in custody for an unrelated crime was relevant to the issue of identity — a material fact — and therefore should be properly deemed admissible. See Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), and Harkins v. State, 380 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The appellant's second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant. Appellant contends that the trial court’s error was twofold — (1) that sent…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Cleveland Larry Jenkins v. State, 208 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dargans v. State, 259 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)