Corley v. State, 76--44
| Decision Date | 16 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--44,76--44 |
| Citation | 335 So.2d 849 |
| Parties | Robert John CORLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kenneth Garber, Fort Myers, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
On this appeal from a conviction for second degree murder, we reverse for a new trial because of the trial court's erroneous exclusion of proferred testimony that the only identifiable fingerprints on a vodka bottle found on a couch near the victim's body were those of an unidentified third person and had been made neither by the decedent nor the defendant. The evidence was plainly admissible in support of the defense that the crime was committed by someone other than the defendant and the failure to admit it cannot, in light of the entire record, be considered harmless. Commonwealth v. Loomis, 270 Pa. 254, 113 A. 428 (1921); State v. Cooper, 2 N.J. 540, 67 A.2d 298 (1949); See Willoughby v. State, 154 Miss. 653, 122 So. 757 (1929); Cf. Dargans v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1972, 259 So.2d 782; cases collected, Annot., Evidence--Finger, Palm, or Footprint, 28 A.L.R.2d 1115, 1133--1135. The cases cited by the state, E.g., Wilkerson v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1970, 232 So.2d 217, all of which deal with the quite different issues of the admissibility and sufficiency of fingerprint evidence introduced by the prosecution to establish guilt, are not in point.
The other issues raised by the defendant merit little discussion. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining the victim's eight-year-old daughter was competent to testify. Bell v. State, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 575; Davis v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1972, 264 So.2d 31, 32; Harrold v. Schluep, Fla.App.4th, 1972, 264 So.2d 431, 434--435. And, on this record, there was no error in the exclusion of police reports which indicated that the victim had made complaints concerning alleged break-ins and attacks upon her where she formerly lived, well prior to the incident in question. A different result would of course follow if, at the retrial, the defendant is able to demonstrate a connection between the fingerprints on the vodka bottle and a person identified in one or more of the reports.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grieco v. State
...in which evidence tying third parties to a crime is admissable. See Robinson v. State, 80 Fla. 736, 87 So. 61 (1920); Corley v. State, 335 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). I also do not consider the error to be harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 I concur in affirming as to the other i......
-
Pahl v. State, 80-814
...and the failure to admit such testimony cannot, in the light of the entire record of this case, be considered harmless. Corley v. State, 335 So.2d 849 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). If the jury had been allowed to consider that one of the victims had started three other fires within a short period of t......
-
Watts v. State, s. 77-1192
...the motion to suppress, the trial court erroneously concluded that such evidence was irrelevant. As this court held in Corley v. State, 335 So.2d 849 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), such evidence was clearly admissible for the jury to consider in deciding whether someone other than appellants committed ......