arguing it was “unnecessary to decide” whether the fingerprint evidence standing alone was insufficient given “other evidence tending to show that [the] defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged in this case was introduced at trial”
How later courts described this case
- arguing it was “unnecessary to decide” whether the fingerprint evidence standing alone was insufficient given “other evidence tending to show that [the] defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged in this case was introduced at trial”
- holding that where fingerprints were uniquely positioned on a car door, “the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to send this case to the jury”
- noting this Court “overlooked” the listed “additional pieces of corroborating evidence” after determining the “fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient”
- where defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt, evidence showing that the fingerprint "could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed," "standing alone, was sufficient to send [the] case to the jury"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Frye
concurring.
I find it unnecessary to decide, in this case, whether, as the majority states, “the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to *720 send this case to the jury.” As the opinion points out, other evidence tending to show that defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged in this case was introduced at trial. I agree with the majority that the fingerprint evidence, together with the corroborating evidence, was substantial evidence sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the verdicts in this case. Whether the fingerprint evidence, “standing alone,” was sufficient, substantial evidence to take the case to the jury against this defendant for first-degree kidnapping, common-law robbery, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and nine counts of obtaining property by false pretenses is a question we need not decide today. Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the majority of this Court, but not the reasoning.