State v. Hightower, 511 S.W.3d 454

On Jan. 15, 2014, Dephanie Gillespie was threatened at gunpoint while seated in her car; the assailant removed items (purse, iPad) which were later found nearby.
Detective Deidrick arrived minutes after the incident, observed fresh-looking prints on the driver-side window, and lifted them using powder and tape.
Latent examiner Dan Stoecklin (St. Louis County) used the ACE-V method, scanned one print into AFIS, and identified two prints as matching Defendant’s left middle and ring fingers; a Unit verifier confirmed the match (non-blind verification).
Defense proffered Dr. Ralph Haber at a Frye hearing to challenge ACE-V’s scientific reliability; he testified that some scientific bodies criticized ACE-V, though fingerprint examiners generally accept it. The trial court admitted the fingerprint testimony under Frye.
At trial the jury convicted Defendant of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action; Defendant appealed raising three points concerning Frye admissibility, sufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial closing remarks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of fingerprint testimony under Frye	State: ACE-V-based fingerprint ID is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and admissible	Hightower: ACE-V lacks general scientific acceptance and is unreliable under Frye	Court: Admit testimony — ACE-V has widespread acceptance; majority of courts admit it under Frye; point denied
Sufficiency of the evidence for robbery and armed criminal action	State: Eyewitness account, fresh fingerprints matching Defendant, recovered property, and quick police response support conviction	Hightower: Prints alone don’t prove they were made at the time of the crime; no exclusive proof linking him to the assault	Court: Evidence (eyewitness, fresh-lifted prints matched to Defendant, recovered items) permitted a rational jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; point denied
Prosecutorial burden-shifting in closing & mistrial request	State: Prosecutor’s remarks (suggesting other experts could have been called) were improper but were struck and curative instructions given	Hightower: Comments shifted burden and warranted mistrial	Court: Curative instruction and striking cured prejudice; defendant received requested relief; no manifest injustice; point denied

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general-acceptance test for scientific evidence admissibility)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
Dorsey v. State, 448 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. banc 2014) (Missouri follows Frye for criminal expert evidence)
Elliott v. State, 215 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. banc 2007) (admission of evidence is within trial court discretion)
State v. Collings, 450 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. banc 2014) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence and inferences in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Bell, 62 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (a fingerprint at the scene can alone support conviction when circumstances support recency)
People v. Luna, 989 N.E.2d 655 (Ill. 2013) (rejecting wholesale challenge to ACE-V; courts generally admit fingerprint ID testimony)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005) (same: ACE-V methodology has been found admissible by appellate courts)