221 Cal. App. 4th 1001
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- O.D. is a juvenile appealing orders finding first degree burglary and declaring ward of the court.
- Marlene R. reported a burglary at her Antioch residence on Oct 30, 2009; items missing and a cut window screen with palm prints observed.
- Officer Benzler collected palm prints from the window; the print outside the window was used for identification.
- Stephanie Souza, fingerprint examiner, used ACE-V method and matched the palm print to O.D. via CA DOJ database search and corroborating examiners.
- O.D. moved to exclude Souza’s testimony under Kelly (1976) arguing fingerprint comparison is not generally accepted; the court admitted the testimony.
- The jurisdictional hearing in spring 2012 sustained burglary allegations; dispositional hearing placed O.D. at a youth facility for nine months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACE-V fingerprint evidence is governed by Kelly rule. | O.D. argues Kelly applies to fingerprint comparison. | Souza argues ACE-V is not a 'new scientific technique' under Kelly. | ACE-V not governed by Kelly; admissible without Kelly prerequisites. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports first degree burglary finding beyond reasonable doubt. | Palm print link plus entry supports burglary. | Print evidence is not infallible and may be insufficient. | Substantial evidence supported the burglary finding beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (Cal. 1976) (Kelly governs admissibility of new scientific techniques)
- People v. Venegas, 18 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 1998) (DNA subject to Kelly; fingerprint comparisons not inherently so)
- People v. Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136 (Cal. 1989) (Kelly often inapplicable to expert testimony unless special features)
- People v. Farnam, 28 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2002) (Fingerprint comparisons are generally accepted; Kelly not always applicable)
- People v. Webb, 6 Cal.4th 494 (Cal. 1993) (Kelly inapplicable when technique understandable to laypersons)
- People v. Johnson, 47 Cal.3d 614 (Cal. 1988) (Fingerprints strong identity evidence)
- People v. Bailes, 129 Cal.App.3d 265 (Cal. App. 1982) (Print on a window can support burglary)