IN THE INTEREST OF A. V. P., A MINOR, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for attempted arson based solely on finding his fingerprint on a gasoline bottle found near a courthouse fire. The appellate court reversed, holding the state failed to prove the fingerprint was made at the time of the crime, and the only other evidence of guilt (presence at the scene) was improperly admitted hearsay.
The court reversed the judgment, holding that the fingerprint evidence alone was insufficient to support a conviction because there was no evidence the fingerprint was made at the time of the crime, and the only corroborating evidence (presence at the scene) was improperly admitted hearsay that the trial judge ruled inadmissible on the question of guilt.
[1] Fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient to prove guilt when the circumstances do not establish that the print could only have been made at the time the crime was commi…
[2] Circumstantial evidence of guilt must be inconsistent with innocence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes the legal standard for fingerprint evidence in criminal cases; mere proof of contact is insufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA fire occurred at the Flagler County Courthouse. Several bottles of gasoline were found at the scene. A fingerprint of the minor was found on one bot…
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment adjudicating the subject child to be delinquent and committing him to the Division of Youth Services for an indeterminate period. The judgment was based upon a finding by the court that the child was guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of arson.
The trial judge based his adjudication of guilt upon his finding that “the child was within 200 feet more or less of the fire scene during the night of the fire” and “that there was a fingerprint of the child on a bottle filled with gasoline, found in the vicinity of the fire and said fingerprint was placed there within the ambit of the crime.”
We have read the record and the briefs and considered the oral arguments of the attorneys. The only evidence of the child’s guilt is his fingerprint found on the bottle which the trial judge alluded to in his order. This bottle of gasoline was one of several found at the scene of the fire which had been thrown into or against the building (the Flagler County Courthouse). In addition to the child’s fingerprint, the bottle had five or six additional prints thereon. No attempt was made by the investigating officer to ascertain the identity of the remaining five or six fingerprints. While the child’s fingerprint found on the soft drink bottle shows that he at some time touched the bottle, there is no evidence that he touched it at a time relevant to the arson. The burden was upon the state to prove that this circumstantial evidence was not only consistent with guilt but was inconsistent with innocence. In Rhoden v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 227 So. 2d 349, this court said:
“. . . 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. ”
Also see this court’s opinion in Arant v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 256 So. 2d 515, a case wherein a fingerprint was found on a can containing a marijuana plant. There the court said:
“The fingerprint proves quite conclusively that appellant touched the can. It tells us nothing about when. It could have been before the plant was in the can or it could have been afterwards. Obviously the trier of fact thought it probable that the print was made after the plant’s presence in the can was manifest. But guilt cannot rest on mere probabilities.”
We have found no support in the record for the trial judge’s finding that the child was “within 200 feet more or less of the fire scene during the night of the fire” other than possible inadmissible hearsay which was admitted by the trial judge solely for the purpose of attempted impeachment by the state of one of its own witnesses. The trial judge specifically ruled such evidence to be inadmissible on the question of the child’s guilt or innocence. The evidence presented in this case does not support the court’s finding of the child's guilt.
Reversed.
JOHNSON, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ent to establish that the defendant committed the burglary. Since the front door was accessible to the general public, the prints might have been placed on the glass sometime before the glass was broken in the burglary.4, 5 And in A. V. P. v. State, 307 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), where the juvenile’s fingerprints were on a soft drink bottle filled with gasoline and found in the vicinity of the arson, the assumption was indulged that the print could have been made at a time unconnected with the arson, pre…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to link one of the juveniles to a burglary and larceny and two of the juveniles to a burglary; delinquency adjudications based on findings as to these offenses reversed); A.V.P. v. State, 307 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to link defendant to an arson based on fingerprint proofs; delinquency adjudication based on an arson finding reversed); Thompson v. State, 276 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert, denied, 281 So…
-
State v. Mattox, 441 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s, the fingerprint evidence was deemed insufficient after a trial on the matter. See e.g., Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 308 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied 321 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1975); A.V.P. v. State, 307 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). This difference is highlighted by the following quotation, which is applicable to the instant situation: If the State’s evidence is all circumstantial, then whether it has carri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Rhoden v. State, 227 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)