State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 09 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1002,76-1002
• Citation: 3 O.O.3d 321,361 N.E.2d 419,49 Ohio St.2d 198
• Parties: , 3 O.O.3d 321 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MILLER, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 198

49 Ohio St.2d 198

361 N.E.2d 419, 3 O.O.3d 321

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MILLER, Appellant.

No. 76-1002.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 9, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

Fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused are sufficient proof of this identity to sustain his conviction, where the circumstances show that such prints, found at the scene of the crime, could only have been impressed at the time of the commission of the crime.

On August 28, 1975, the Clark County grand jury charged George Washington Miller With the count of purposely causing the death of Shirley Craycraft while committing aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2903.01. The first specification to that count stated that the offense was committed while Miller was committing aggravated robbery, and the second specification stated that the offense was committed while Miller was committing aggravated burglary.

The second and third counts of the indictment charged Miller with aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, as defined by R.C. 2911.01 and 2911.11, respectively.

The record establishes the following facts:

At approximately 2:40 a. m. on August 13, 1975, the Springfield, Ohio, Police Department responded to a burglary alarm at the Twin Fair store at Burnett Road. The first officers at the scene saw four gym bags sitting in the driveway near the rear of the store. Finding the main overhead door at the rear of the store unlocked and slightly open, the officers entered. While checking the aisles, the officers came upon the body of Shirley Craycraft, the store's maintenance man. A medical expert testified at the trial that Craycraft dies as a result of cerebral cranial injuries and gunshot wounds involving the head and neck. Apparently, there were no witnesses to the homicide.

Despite the fact that no stolen items from the Twin Fair store or murder weapons were found on Miller's person upon his arrest, the following objects found near the scene of the crime were directly linked to him through fingerprint analysis.

Inside one of the gym bags, found near the outside rear of the store, Miller's fingerprint was discovered on a paper sack filled with Twin Fair merchandise.

Near the overhead door at the rear of the store police found a hacksaw, the cardboard package it came in, saw blades, and two locks. Miller's fingerprint was found on the hacksaw blade and on the cardboard portion of the hacksaw was originally This cardboard package was originally sealed by protective plastic which had to have been removed to expose the package as it was found.

The two locks, used to secure the overhead door of the store from the inside, apparently were forced open by some tool or device. Although there were metal filings found in the teeth of the hacksaw blade, it is not clear whether the hacksaw was ever actually used on the locks to effect an apparent means of escape.

The store manager testified that each entrance and exit to his store was connected to an alarm system which was activated before closing time. Only Craycraft would remain in the store when all the store entrances and exits were so locked or secured.

The store manager testified further that Miller worked at the Twin Fair store for about one month in 1972. Craycraft was employed at Twin Fair during this same time.

Defense counsel introduced in evidence the testimony of two witnesses who testified that Miller was at their home on the night of the murder. However, it appears that both witnesses waited until the day of the trial to come forward with such information. Also, one witness admitted that she had been convicted of the crimes of forgery, fraud, and petty larceny.

Miller, on direct examination, testified that sometime in July 1975, preceding the murder, he went to the Twin Fair store to purchase machinery or wood screws. Upon cross-examination, Miller testified that he could only recall handling the screws and was unable to explain how his fingerprint got on the saw blade or inside its display package.

Miller, having waived his right to a jury trial, was tried before a three-judge panel pursuant to R.C. 2945.06. On November 18, 1975, Miller was found guilty on each count and on the specifications. Following a psychiatric examination and pre-sentence investigation, a mitigation hearing was held. The three-judge panel, unanimously finding that none of the mitigating circumstances listed in R.C. 2929.04(B) was established by a preponderance of the evidence, imposed he sentence of death.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

James A. Berry, Pros. Atty., Springfield, for appellee.

Acton, Dunn & Busch and Thomas H. Busch, Springfield, for appellant.

SWEENEY, Justice.

Appellant raises two issues in his first proposition of law.

Appellant proposes that fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused, found in a place where a crime was committed, upon objects always accessible to the public, and upon which fingerprints could have been impressed at any time, are without probative force unless the circumstances are proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the prints could have been made only at the time the crime was committed.

Ohio has not adopted such a strict standard for determining the admissibility of evidence as proposed by appellant. Rather, this court has stated that 'evidence is admissible where it is of sufficient force that it logically tends to prove or disprove a fact or issue necessary to a decision in a particular case * * *.' Paragraph three of the syllabus in State v. Doll (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 130, 265 N.E.2d 279. In the instant cause, Miller's fingerprints were discovered on a paper sack filled with Twin Fair merchandise found in one of the gym bags located in the driveway behind the store, on the blade of a hacksaw found near the overhead door, and on the cardboard backing of the hacksaw display package also found near the overhead door. These prints, in relation to the locations where they were discovered, were admissible in that they tended to prove Miller was at the scene of the crime and directly involved in its commission. Thus, appellant's argument concerning the inadmissibility of fingerprint evidence is not well taken.

Appellant proposes further that before fingerprint evidence may be used to support a conviction, such circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. While appellant's proposition is a correct statement of Ohio law (see paragraph six of the syllabus in State v. Sheppard (1956), 165 Ohio St. 293, 135 N.E.2d 340), it is this court's duty in reviewing a criminal case to confine its consideration to a determination of whether there is sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict rendered. Paragraph five of the syllabus in State v. Sheppard, supra.

Appellant contends that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the guilty party for the following reasons: (1) The state was unable to connect the defendant in any way with any of the tools allegedly used in the burglary, with the weapon used in the murder, or with any of the stolen merchandise, (2) no one could place defendant at the store at the time any of the crimes occurred; (3) the state offered no evidence establishing the time and circumstances in which the fingerprints were made; (4) the fingerprints were found on items on regular public display, movable throughout the store; and (5) the fingerprints could have been made at any time up to six months or a year prior to the date of the identification.

The record indicates that Craycraft's assailant must have fled through an opening of the overhead door at the rear of the store by forcing open two locks securing that door. To the right of the door, and next to one of the broken locks, Miller's fingerprint was found on a hacksaw blade and on the inside portion of its display package.

Given the location of these objects, this court finds that there was sufficient evidence for the triers of fact to conclude that Miller, having no demonstrated access to such objects preceding the day of the crime, must have been the assailant who escaped through the opened overhead door.

Also, Miller's fingerprint was lifted from a paper sack inside one of the four gym bags filled with Twin Fair merchandise. From this evidence it was reasonable for the triers of fact to conclude that Miller, having collected various store items into these gym bags, carried the bags out of the store while effecting his escape.

In those jurisdictions where convictions were based largely, if not exclusively, on fingerprint evidence, the general rule has been developed in reviewing courts that fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused are sufficient proof of his identity to sustain his conviction where the circumstances show that such prints, found at the scene of the crime, could only have been impressed at the time of the commission of the crime, 20 American Jurisprudence 329, Evidence, Section 358; 28 A.L.R.2d 1150, Section 28.

In determining the sufficiency of the fingerprint evidence, a reviewing court must examine this evidence on a case-by-case basis. ¹ The crucial issue is whether attendant circumstances, such as the location of the accused's alleged fingerprint, the character of the premises where the print was found, and the accessibility of the...