Solis v. People
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 24483,24483 |
| Citation | 175 Colo. 127,485 P.2d 903 |
| Parties | George SOLIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Craig A. Murdock, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error. MAX C. WILSON, District Judge. *
Plaintiff in error, George Solis, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted by a jury of the crime of burglary and of being an habitual criminal. Defendant seeks reversal on several grounds; however, it is necessary to consider only one.
On July 28, 1968, the store building of Homer Reed Ltd., was burglarized. The building is located in the Cherry Creek Shopping Center. The business operated in the building was a ladies' ready-to-wear, catering to the general public. At the time of the burglary, entry was gained by breaking the glass from a front groundfloor window which was approximately two feet high by two and a half feet wide. The top of the glass in the window was two and one-half feet above sidewalk level. Inside the store a clothes rack was stationed on the floor at a distance of three or four feet from the window. There was no obstruction blocking entry after the glass was removed. Most of the broken glass was inside the building, and from one of the larger pieces the police department lifted six latent fingerprints. Mr. Ramsey of the Denver Police Department studied these latent prints, and they were compared with the rolled prints of the defendant, taken by the police department. It was further testified that latent prints would remain for about two years, unless they were exposed to the elements.
There is nothing in this record to indicate that the lifted prints were exposed to the weather. No testimony was offered as to the age of the prints, either before of after the burglary. Further, no showing was made as to whether they were on the inside or the outside of the glass. The store, as stated before, is a ladies' ready-to-wear which caters to the general public and is situated within a shopping mall. No other evidence was offered by the prosecution. Fingerprint evidence may is some instances be sufficient in and of itself to support a conviction, where that evidence is tied directly to the commission of the crime and no explanation other than guilt exists. But here, the evidence does not meet that test. If the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watson
...exclude every hypothesis other than that the fingerprints were imprinted at the time of the offense. See, e.g., Solis v. People, 175 Colo. 127, 485 P.2d 903 (Sup.Ct.1971); Musgrove v. State, supra; State v. Miller, 49 Ohio St.2d 198, 361 N.E.2d 419 (Sup.Ct.1977), vacated 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.......
-
People v. Borghesi, No. 99CA1358.
...room for speculation and conjecture and is equally consistent with a hypothesis of innocence as with that of guilt. Solis v. People, 175 Colo. 127, 485 P.2d 903 (1971). In other words, a mere modicum of relevant evidence cannot sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Gonza......
-
People v. Clark
...when the prints were impressed, were deemed insufficient to support conviction in Ray, 626 P.2d at 171. See also Solis v. People, 175 Colo. 127, 128-29, 485 P.2d 903, 904 (1971) (defendant's fingerprint found on window glass broken during the burglary of a building, where the prosecution co......
-
People v. Wadle, 01CA1484.
...testified that the victim's death was caused by the rebleeding of chronic subdural hematomas. Defendant relies on Solis v. People, 175 Colo. 127, 485 P.2d 903 (1971), and Stevenson v. People, 148 Colo. 538, 367 P.2d 339 (1961), for the proposition that evidence equally consistent with a hyp......