KS v. State, No. 5D01-1520.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SHARP, W., J. |
| Citation | 814 So.2d 1190 |
| Parties | K.S., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-1520. |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2002 |
814 So.2d 1190
K.S., a Child, Appellant,v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
No. 5D01-1520.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 19, 2002.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tammy L. Jaques, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
SHARP, W., J.
K.S. appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and placing him on probation for armed burglary of a dwelling with a firearm and grand theft of a firearm. His primary argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the only evidence connecting him with this crime was one fingerprint on the outside of the victim's (Hanson) window and the state failed to rebut his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, in this circumstantial evidence case. We affirm.
Hanson's home in St. Cloud, Florida, was the site of a burglary on January 8, 2001. K.S. lived in a house on the next road. At about 9:45 a.m., Hanson saw K.S. walking through her front yard. As soon as he heard her car approach, he started to walk quickly away. She asked him if he had just been at her home. He denied he had been in her yard.
When Hanson returned from work at 10:00 that evening, she discovered a light on in her bedroom and the vertical blinds in the kitchen window were askew. Jewelry, fishing equipment, and two guns were missing from her house. The next morning she discovered the inside lock on the kitchen window had been broken and the soap dispenser in the kitchen sink, located directly in front of the window, had also been broken. That was the area the police identified as having been the probable point of entry for the burglary.
Hanson also discovered fingerprints on three windows, including the kitchen window. The print on the kitchen window was over seven feet high above the ground level. Because Hanson's house is one house away from a lake, and sand and wind constantly blow against the windows, fingerprints would be gone within 72 hours of having been placed there. The police took the fingerprints the day after the
Hanson admitted K.S. had been at her house the week before Christmas looking for work, but she did not talk to him through the kitchen window. K.S. testified he had returned to Hanson's house a second time, again to look for work. He said he knocked on the door and heard noises inside. He thought something had happened so he looked inside through the kitchen window. He testified that when he did not see anything, he left. No other evidence connecting K.S. with the burglary was presented.
A. Was the Fingerprint Evidence Sufficient to Sustain a Conviction in This Case?
When the state relies solely upon fingerprint evidence to establish a defendant's guilt, the evidence must demonstrate that the fingerprint could have only been made when the crime was committed. Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982); Williams v. State, 740 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Formor v. State, 676 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); C.E. v. State, 665 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Miles v. State, 466 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 476 So.2d 675 (Fla.1985); Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Knight v. State, 294 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 303 So.2d 29 (Fla.1974). Further, where the print is found on an item or in a place accessible to the general public, and no other evidence establishes that the print was made at the time of the crime, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Williams; Formor; C.E.; Miles; Sorey; Knight.
In Walker v. State, 656 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), a case virtually identical to the present one, a home was burglarized by someone who entered through a broken window in the back bedroom. Walker's fingerprint was found on that window trim at a place where one might place his hands to push the window up from the outside. Although this was the only evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolling v. Jones, Case No. 3:13cv473/MCR/CJK
...guilt, the evidence must demonstrate that the fingerprint could have only been made when the crime was committed." K.S. v. State, 814 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).In this case, the State did not rely solely on the fingerprint evidence to establish defendant's guilt. The State also ......
-
Wilson v. State, No. 1D04-1441.
...affirm this cause without prejudice to appellant to seek appropriate post-conviction relief. See A.F.E., 853 So.2d at 1093; Washington, 814 So.2d at 1190. ERVIN, BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., -------- Notes: 1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). --------...
-
C.P.C. v. State, No. 5D14–4442.
...in an area accessible to the general public, and no evidence establishes that the print was made at the time of the crime. K.S. v. State, 814 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In order to support a conviction based on circumstantia......
-
S.S. v. State, Case No. 2D19-2572
...See Leonard, 731 So. 2d at 716 ; Amell v. State, 438 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ; Williams, 740 So. 2d at 28 ; K.S. v. State, 814 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, the State failed to present a prima facie case for criminal mischief, and the trial court erred in deny......
-
Bolling v. Jones, Case No. 3:13cv473/MCR/CJK
...guilt, the evidence must demonstrate that the fingerprint could have only been made when the crime was committed." K.S. v. State, 814 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).In this case, the State did not rely solely on the fingerprint evidence to establish defendant's guilt. The State also ......
-
Wilson v. State, 1D04-1441.
...affirm this cause without prejudice to appellant to seek appropriate post-conviction relief. See A.F.E., 853 So.2d at 1093; Washington, 814 So.2d at 1190. ERVIN, BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., -------- Notes: 1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). --------...
-
C.P.C. v. State, 5D14–4442.
...in an area accessible to the general public, and no evidence establishes that the print was made at the time of the crime. K.S. v. State, 814 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In order to support a conviction based on circumstantia......
-
Washington v. State, 5D01-9.
...constitute fundamental error. A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review 814 So.2d 1190 of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court, or if not properly preserved, would cons......