# State v. Riley

> Nebraska Supreme Court · December 1, 1967 · 182 Neb. 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663827

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Virgil D. Riley Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Nebraska Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 1, 1967
- **Citations:** 182 Neb. 300; 154 N.W.2d 741; 1967 Neb. LEXIS 497
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** White, Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, Newton
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663827

## Opinion text

McCown and Smith, JJ.,
concurring in result.
The evidence established that defendant Reichel’s palm print and fingerprints had been separately taken after his arrest in 1966. Both of these were identified and connected with the latent prints at the scene of the crime. The prosecution later introduced an additional fingerprint record of Reichel taken from the police files and likewise identified and connected it. The majority opinion concedes that the additional fingerprint identification as to Reichel was cumulative, but holds it “extremely relevant” and admissible. Where the fingerprint identification had already been established by proper evidence, the later introduction of additional fingerprints from the police files not only was cumulative, but the purpose of its introduction might reasonably be said to have been directed at the inference, of prior criminal activity and prior police contact rather than fingerprint identification. Under such circumstances, it was extremely “irrelevant” rather than “relevant” and it should have been inadmissible. This court should not even indirectly imply an approval of such procedure. In “a close case” or in a case in which the purpose as *308 to evidence of “other crimes” is more clear, the majority holding on this issue is probably insupportable. People v. Van Cleave, 208 Cal. 295 , 280 P. 983 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9663827. Public record. Not legal advice.