Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Ivey v. State

Ivey v. State

176 So. 2d 611
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 30, 1965
Docket64-1028
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 176 So. 2d 611 (Ivey 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
Ivey v. State, 176 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

176 So.2d 611 (1965)

Fred IVEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 64-1028.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 30, 1965.

*612 Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Fred Ivey appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence of five years in the State penitentiary for breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit felony and grand larceny. The record reveals that the only evidence offered by the State to prove the identity of the appellant as the culprit was the appellant's fingerprint on a glass jalousie which was taken from the front door of the store building.

The State concedes that this case is governed by the principle set forth in Tirko v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 388, that 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. This requirement was not met in this case because the print was in a public place and the record does not preclude that it might have been placed there some time before the crime.

The defect is not cured by the fact that appellant stated to a policeman that he had never been in Florida City where the building was located nor is it cured by the testimony of the owner that he had never seen the appellant there.

Other points presented in the brief are without merit. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64-5912 is affirmed. The judgment and sentence in Case No. 64-5913 is reversed.

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

Related

Formor v. State
676 So. 2d 1013 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
CE v. State
665 So. 2d 1097 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Miles v. State
466 So. 2d 239 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Amell v. State
438 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State v. Mattox
441 So. 2d 648 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Sorey v. State
419 So. 2d 810 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
M. R. v. State
399 So. 2d 56 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
MR v. State
399 So. 2d 56 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
J.C. v. State
377 So. 2d 731 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
State v. Carter
578 P.2d 991 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1978)
Redding v. State
357 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Wilcox v. State
356 So. 2d 887 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
State v. Monroe
329 So. 2d 193 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1976)
Engdall v. State
319 So. 2d 144 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
State v. Pryor
306 So. 2d 675 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State v. Perry
297 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Brown v. State
294 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
State v. Miller
490 S.W.2d 36 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1973)
Dargans v. State
259 So. 2d 782 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Williams v. State
247 So. 2d 425 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 So. 2d 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivey-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.