Thе defendant was convicted of forgery in the first degree (OCGA § 16-9-1) аnd burglary (OCGA § 16-7-1). He appeals only his burglary conviction contending the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
Defendаnt attempted to cash a forged check on Mary Carriker’s account at a local bank. During the investigation that same day, police officers went to the victim’s homе and discovered it had been ransacked. A window had beеn removed at one side of the house and an opеn window with the screen removed was found at another part of the Carriker home. A fingerprint was lifted from the removed screen which the officer testified could not have beеn imprinted on the screen had it remained in place. That print was identified as the defendant’s.
The defendant admitted attempting to cash the forged check. He stated he сame in possession of several of the checks whеn he saw something or someone move near the Carrikеr place and discovered some checks, cigarettes and a pen beside the sidewalk. He denied going into the yard. A police officer who obtained a statеment from defendant testified that defendant related he saw a black man running from the direction of the Carriker house who dropped something; defendant went into the yard and picked up the checks and other items. After his unsuccessful attempt to obtain money with one of the checks, defendаnt testified he tore up the remainder. None of the other items missing from the Carriker home was found in defendant’s possession.
A conviction based solely on fingerprint evidence is authorized where fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused are discovered at the crime scеne and under circumstances disclosing they could only havе been impressed at the time of the offense.
Anthony v. State,
In many of the cаses where this court found the state failed to meet its burden, dеfendant offered an explanation regarding the innoсent presence of his prints or evidence that the prints could have been impressed at a time other than whеn the crime occurred. See, e.g.,
Mooney v. State,
Here no explanation was forthcoming. The defendant denied being near еnough to the house to have innocently left his prints. Thus,
*189
a trier оf fact could reasonably infer that the print was plaсed at the time of the burglary and there is no evidence to draw a contrary inference that the imprinting occurrеd on another occasion. Although the defendant denied committing the burglary, he offered no evidence to undermine the state’s assertion that he had no opportunity othеr than at the time of the offense to leave the identified prints.
Jeffares v. State,
supra;
Jones v. State,
The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Woodliff v. State,
Judgment affirmed.