Potts v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4358
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Potts was convicted of burglary of a dwelling based on a fingerprint from the inside broken window.
- Fingerprint identified by Sergeant Tustin as Potts; the window was the entry point.
- Owner Dieujuste testified he did not know Potts and did not give permission to enter.
- Sergeant Tustin testified that his findings were verified by another examiner from a different agency and stated, “we wouldn't be here if he didn't verify it.”
- Closing argument highlighted the verification by a second examiner; defense moved for acquittal arguing lack of proof of timing and entry.
- Trial court denied acquittal; appellate court later reversed for new trial due to improper admission of verification testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony that a second examiner verified the fingerprint is admissible | Potts: verification by another examiner is improper bolstering. | State: verification supports reliability of identification. | Reversed for new trial; error reversible. |
| Whether denial of judgment of acquittal was proper given the fingerprint evidence | Potts: evidence insufficient to prove entry and identity beyond reasonable doubt. | State: fingerprint on interior of window establishes burglary identity. | Affirmed denial of acquittal; however, remanded for new trial due to bolstering error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Telfort v. State, 978 So.2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (bolstering by second examiner error)
- Bunche v. State, 5 So.3d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (same bolstering error on fingerprint testimony)
- Walker v. State, 656 So.2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (fingerprint on window supported burglary conviction)
- Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (evidence location of object supports identity in robbery)
- Roberts v. State, 268 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (fingerprints at crime scene linked to defendant for conviction)