Harper v. State, 67589

• Decision Date: 13 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 67589,67589
• Citation: 171 Ga.App. 63,318 S.E.2d 502
• Parties: HARPER v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 502

318 S.E.2d 502

171 Ga.App. 63

HARPER v. The STATE.

No. 67589.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 13, 1984.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1984.

Columbus Gilmore, Columbus, for appellant.

Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Dist. Atty., George N. Guest, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary. He appeals, enumerating as error the general grounds.

At trial, the evidence showed that a grocery store was burglarized during pre-dawn hours, and a box of watches was taken. A short time thereafter, appellant was apprehended nearby. The most significant evidence against appellant consisted of his footprints and his thumbprint, both of which were discovered at the scene of the crime. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

" 'To warrant a conviction based solely on fingerprint evidence, the fingerprints corresponding to those of the defendant must have been found in the place where the crime was committed, and under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. [Cits.] These cases require the state to prove to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed.' [Cit.]" Bryant v. State, 164 Ga.App. 555, 558, 296 S.E.2d 792 (1982). See also Jeffares v. State, 162 Ga.App. 36, 290 S.E.2d 123 (1982).

In the instant case, appellant's thumbprint was found on a fluorescent light tube located outside the door of the store, next to the window through which the burglar gained entry. There was evidence that, prior to the burglary, the light had been operating properly, illuminating the area of the doorway and the window. After the burglary, it was discovered that someone had extinguished the light by twisting the fluorescent tube in its fixture. Appellant offered no hypothesis whatsoever to explain the presence of his thumbprint on the tube. Nor was there any evidence that appellant had ever been to the store on any occasion other than that of the burglary. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant's thumbprint was left on the tube during the course of the burglary. See Jackson v. State, 158 Ga.App. 530, 281 S.E.2d 252 (1981).

Moreover, appellant's conviction was not based solely on fingerprint evidence. Appellant's footprints were found inside the store and outside the window through which the burglar entered. "Footprints alone are not usually sufficient to authorize a conviction unless there is some peculiarity in the tracks to clearly identify them as belonging to the accused. [Cit.]" Brockington v....