Ivey v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-1028,64-1028 |
| Citation | 176 So.2d 611 |
| Parties | Fred IVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
Fred Ivey appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence of five years in the State penitentiary for breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit felony and grand larceny. The record reveals that the only evidence offered by the State to prove the identity of the appellant as the culprit was the appellant's fingerprint on a glass jalousie which was taken from the front door of the store building.
The State concedes that this case is governed by the principle set forth in Tirko v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 388, that 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. This requirement was not met in this case because the print was in a public place and the record does not preclude that it might have been placed there some time before the crime.
The defect is not cured by the fact that appellant stated to a policeman that he had never been in Florida City where the building was located nor is it cured by the testimony of the owner that he had never seen the appellant there.
Other points presented in the brief are without merit. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64-5912 is affirmed. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64-5913 is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawless v. State
...window pane were held to be insufficient where the evidence did not show that entry was gained through that window. In Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611 (Fla.App.1965) the only evidence of identity was a print found on a glass jalousie on the front door of a burglarized store building. The court......
-
Sorey v. State, 81-2465
...247 So.2d 425 (Fla.1971), courts must conclude that a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. For example, in Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), evidence that the defendant's fingerprint was found on a glass jalousie on the front door of a store building was held ins......
-
Engdall v. State, 75--72
...the fingerprint could have been made Only at the time the crime was Committed. Bryant v. State, Fla.1970, 235 So.2d 721; Ivey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 611; Tirko v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 388; see also Williams v. State, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 595; A.V.P. v. State, Fla.App......
-
Wilcox v. State
...applicable when the State relies on fingerprint evidence, in conformity with the law relating thereto as pronounced in Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), and Tirko v. State, 138 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), in which it was held that where fingerprint evidence is relied on to ......