A. V. P. v. State, V--349
| Citation | 307 So.2d 468 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. V--349,V--349 |
| Parties | In the Interest of A.V.P., a minor, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maurice Wagner and Richard D. Bertone, Holly Hull, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Att. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment adjudicating the subject child to be delinquent and committing him to the Division of Youth Services for an indeterminate period. The judgment was based upon a finding by the court that the child was guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of arson.
The trial judge based his adjudication of guilt upon his finding that 'the child was within 200 feet more or less of the fire scene during the night of the fire' and 'that there was a fingerprint of the child on a bottle filled with gasoline, found in the vicinity of the fire and said fingerprint was placed there within the ambit of the crime.'
We have read the record and the briefs and considered the oral arguments of the attorneys. The only evidence of the child's guilt is his fingerprint found on the bottle which the trial judge alluded to in his order. This bottle of gasoline was one of several found at the scene of the fire which had been thrown into or against the building (the Flagler County Courthouse). In addition to the child's fingerprint, the bottle had five or six additional prints thereon. No attempt was made by the investigating officer to ascertain the identity of the remaining five or six fingerprints. While the child's fingerprint found on the soft drink bottle shows that he at some time touched the bottle, there is no evidence that he touched it at a time relevant to the arson. The burden was upon the state to prove that this circumstantial evidence was not only consistent with guilt but was inconsistent with innocence. In Rhoden v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 227 So.2d 349, this court said:
'. . . 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.'
Also see this court's opinion in Arant v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 256 So.2d 515, a case wherein a fingerprint was found on a can containing a marijuana plant. There the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...and two of the juveniles to a burglary; delinquency adjudications based on findings as to these offenses reversed); A.V.P. v. State, 307 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to link defendant to an arson based on fingerprint proofs; delinquency adjudication ba......
-
Sorey v. State, 81-2465
...the prints might have been placed on the glass sometime before the glass was broken in the burglary. 4 , 5 And in A. V. P. v. State, 307 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), where the juvenile's fingerprints were on a soft drink bottle filled with gasoline and found in the vicinity of the arson, ......
-
Engdall v. State, 75--72
...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.1975, 307 So.2d 468. The testimony in the record Clearly demonstrates the state's inability to establish, to any reasonable degree, When the fingerpr......
-
State v. Mattox, s. AM-234
...417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 308 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied 321 So.2d 555 (Fla.1975); A.V.P. v. State, 307 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). This difference is highlighted by the following quotation, which is app......