Cross v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cross v. State

90 So. 3d 1001, 2012 WL 2579531, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2012

DocketNo. 3D10-2093

StatusPublished

This text of 90 So. 3d 1001 (Cross v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cross v. State, 90 So. 3d 1001, 2012 WL 2579531, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that where fingerprints “are located in a place, on an object, or on a particular part of an object to which the general public does not have access, the hypothesis that the print was not placed on the object at the time of the crime is not one which the court must declare reasonable as a matter of law, and it remains for the jury to determine its reasonableness.... [S]uch proof, standing alone, is legally sufficient, and the jury may infer from it that the print was made at the time of the crime”); K.S. v. State, 814 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding evidence sufficient to support a conviction for burglary where juvenile’s fingerprint was found on a kitchen window located at the rear of the home, seven feet above ground level; the kitchen window was the point of entry, and the location of the print was consistent with someone trying to open the window rather than simply look through it); Walker v. State, 656 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding evidence sufficient to support burglary conviction where defendant’s fingerprint was found on the sill of a backyard window, which served as the point of entry and the location of the print was consistent with someone trying to push the window up from the outside).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that where fingerprints “are located in a place, on an object, or on a particular part of an object to which the general public does not have access, the hypothesis that the print was not placed on the object at the time of the crime is not one which the court must declare reasonable as a matter of law, and it remains for the jury to determine its reasonableness.... [S]uch proof, standing alone, is legally sufficient, and the jury may infer from it that the print was made at the time of the crime”); K.S. v. State, 814 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding evidence sufficient to support a conviction for burglary where juvenile’s fingerprint was found on a kitchen window located at the rear of the home, seven feet above ground level; the kitchen window was the point of entry, and the location of the print was consistent with someone trying to open the window rather than simply look through it); Walker v. State, 656 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding evidence sufficient to support burglary conviction where defendant’s fingerprint was found on the sill of a backyard window, which served as the point of entry and the location of the print was consistent with someone trying to push the window up from the outside).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 3d 1001, 2012 WL 2579531, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack