Commonwealth v. French
476 Mass. 1023
Mass.2017Background
- Defendant Eric S. French was found guilty after a bench trial in District Court of breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony (G. L. c. 266, § 18) and larceny over $250 (G. L. c. 266, § 30(1)); convictions were affirmed by the Appeals Court and reviewed here.
- Market in Springfield was burglarized overnight on August 30–31, 2013; plexiglass window pane was removed and found leaning against the front door, and about $400–$500 worth of cigarettes were stolen.
- Police observed the removed plexiglass and a milk crate near it; officer testimony estimated the top of the pane when seated in frame was over 6'4" from the ground.
- A latent fingerprint was recovered from the plexiglass; a fingerprint analyst testified it matched the defendant and that fingerprints cannot be dated and can persist long-term.
- The detective who recovered the print estimated its position on the pane would place it about 5'8"–6'0" from the ground if on the top half, but he acknowledged uncertainty as to which side was the top when the pane had been removed and leaned against the door.
- There was no evidence narrowing the time the pane had been removed or the time the print was left; the pane could have been accessible to passersby for several hours after removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant left the fingerprint on the plexiglass during the burglary | Fingerprint on plexiglass matched French; pane came from the broken window at the crime scene; other scene facts (crate, height) support entry by perpetrator | Print could have been left at a different time; detective uncertain which part of pane bore print; pane was accessible after removal so print could be from passerby; prints cannot be dated | Reversed: fingerprint alone, without evidence reasonably excluding innocent or prior contact, was insufficient to prove defendant placed it during the crime |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 422 Mass. 254 (1996) (reversal where a single fingerprint on mask did not prove participation in the crime)
- Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373 Mass. 700 (1977) (principle that prosecution must prove fingerprint was placed during the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Fazzino, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 485 (1989) (fingerprint evidence must be coupled with corroborating facts excluding innocent explanation)
- Commonwealth v. Baptista, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 910 (1992) (fingerprint inside locked, nonpublic vending machine supported inference it was left during crime)
- Commonwealth v. Wei Ye, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 390 (2001) (fingerprint location and corroborating evidence can support timing inference)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Merola, 405 Mass. 529 (1989) (clarifying standard that prosecutor need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but stronger rule applies when fingerprint is sole ID)