Williams v. State, W--254

• Decision Date: 21 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. W--254,W--254
• Citation: 308 So.2d 595
• Parties: John WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 595

308 So.2d 595

John WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. W--254.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 21, 1975.

Rehearing Denied March 19, 1975.

Stephen P. Mickle, Mickle, Harris & Green, Gainesville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. This Court granted appellant a full appellate review pursuant to Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Sup.Ct.Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 577.

The dwelling which the appellant is accused of burglarizing is the home of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Bailey. At trial, Mr. Bailey testified that on the evening of September 21, 1971, while he was at work his home was broken into and various items were stolen, including a television and clothes. Mrs. Bailey, the only other member of the household, was in Miami on that particular night.

The only evidence connecting the appellant with the crime were his fingerprints which were found on two candlestick holders, a plate, a pitcher, and on the back of an inside doorknob. Mr. Bailey stated that, As far as he knew, the appellant had never been inside the house. The appellant, however, stated that approximately 10 days before the burglary, he had accompanied a cousin of Mrs. Bailey into the Bailey home where the cousin and Mrs. Bailey entered into a 20 to 30 minute conversation. During that period, according to the appellant, he stayed mostly in the living room but did go into the kitchen at one point to get a glass of water from Mrs. Bailey. Neither Mrs. Bailey nor Mrs. Bailey's cousin testified at the appellant's trial.

The State concedes that in order to establish identity by use of fingerprints the State must show that the fingerprints of the accused could only have been made at the time the crime was committed. (Tirko v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1962, 138 So.2d 388) The State argues, however, that there is a distinct difference between fingerprints found in a private place and fingerprints found in a public place. Citing Summerson v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1967, 200 So.2d 594, the State asserts that it has a greater burden where the fingerprints are found in a public place. Superficially, this distinction makes a bit of sense. It would appear more likely that an accused could have left his fingerprints prior to the crime in a public place such as a grocery or department store than in a private place such as a private office or a dwelling.

A deeper analysis, however, reveals that the distinction is artificial and impracticable. Utilization of the public-private place distinction would lead the court into a morass of analytical difficulties which would obscure the real issues involved. A perfect illustration is Summerson, supra, wherein the place involved was a dentist's office which would normally be classified as a public place: But the file cabinet on which the defendant's fingerprints were found was located in a part of the office where the public was not normally allowed. Thus, the public-private place distinction breaks down and must be redefined as a distinction between public places on the one hand and private parts of public places as well as private places on the other. In the case sub judice, fearing...