Roberts v. State
Citation | 268 So.2d 578 |
Decision Date | 07 November 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 70--840,70--840 |
Parties | James Edward ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and HOWELL, CHARLES COOK, Jr., Associate Judge.
In the early evening hours of July 14, 1964, the victim was ravished by an assailant whom she could not identify but whose latent fingerprints were found on a kitchen doorjamb, a cigarette lighter on her bed, and upon a windowsill in the front bedroom of the home. A palm print was similarly found on the premises. It and the named fingerprints (some other unidentifiable ones were found) perfectly corresponded with those of James Edward Roberts, the appellant here.
Accordingly the jury, on his ensuing trial, convicted Roberts of the crime of rape as charged in the indictment and he was subsequently adjudged guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment; from which judgment and sentence the instant appeal was launched.
The sole and slender reed on which he leans is 'that the State failed to establish that the defendant and the assailant in this case were one and the same person.'
But what of the prints?
Our own Supreme Court, in Anderson v. State, Fla., 1970, 241 So.2d 390, 393, 394, in discussing palm prints, expressed the view that they 'are just as reliable and accurate as fingerprints'; and referred with approbation to the 'many decisions in other states . . . that the correspondence of palm prints or bare hand marks found at the scene of the crime with those of the accused is admissible in evidence To prove the latter's identity.' (Emphasis ours).
Significant among fingerprint 'decisions in other states' is Hervey v. People of the State of Colorado, Colo., 1972, 495 P.2d 204, 206; where The defendant's first degree murder conviction was affirmed although, as here, he 'took the stand and denied being in the filling station on the day the murder occurred'; and 'at trial, no witnesses tied the defendant to the scene of the crime.'
The meat of the opinion seems to be:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sorey v. State, 81-2465
...are such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed is to be made by the fact-finder, Roberts v. State, 268 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), provided that the court, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, M. R. v. State, 399 So.2d 56 (Fla......
-
Engdall v. State, 75--72
...us nothing about When. See A.V.P. v. State, supra; see also Williams v. State, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 425; compare with Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So.2d 578. It is axiomatic that to sustain a conviction in circumstantial evidence cases the evidence must not only be consistent with the......
-
Brown v. State
...148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 82; Starling v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 645; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1972, 268 So.2d 578. room of the Howard home. A fingerprint technician with the Public Safety Department was able to identify the latent print wi......
-
D.O. v. State, 3D18-381
...are such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed is to be made by the fact-finder, Roberts v. State, 268 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), provided that the court, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, M. R. v. State, 399 So.2d 56 (Fla......