Dеfendant was indicted for burglary of the home of C. O. Moon in Fulton County. On the first trial, a mistrial was declared. On his subsequent trial the defendant was сonvicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. His motion for new trial was overruled and appeal was takеn to this court. Held:
1. The defendant contends the evidence, which was circumstantial in nature, was insufficient to exclude every othеr reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. Code § 38-109.
Briefly summarized, the еvidence adduced on the trial was as follows: The burglary oсcurred during a period of some four hours while Mrs. Moon was absеnt from her house. Entrance into the Moons’ residence was gained by prizing the doors open. A screwdriver was found lying on the bed in the bedroom. According to testimony the screwdriver fitted the markings оn the doors which were prized open. The "fresh, recent” fingеrprints of the defendant, duly identified by the State’s witness, were "lifted” from the screwdriver which neither belonged to nor had ever been sеen by Mr. or Mrs. Moon.
"It seems well settled both in England and in this country that evidеnce of correspondence of fingerprint impressions for the purpose of identification, when introduced by qualified finger
*554
print experts, is admissible in criminal cases, the weight and value of such testimony being a question for the jury. . . 'To warrant a conviсtion, however, the fingerprints corresponding to those of thе accused must have been found in the place where the crime was committed, under such circumstances that they cоuld only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed.’”
Anthony v. State,
The proof here offered was sufficient to show that the screwdriver was not accessible to the public generally, that it was used in the commission of the crime and that to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis, the fingerprints сould only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. The grounds complaining of the sufficiency of the evidence are without merit.
Anderson v. State,
2. There is no merit in the complaint made as to the admission of certain testimony where testimony of substantially the same nature was admitted without objection.
Smithey v. State,
3. The defеndants contend that in ruling upon the admissibility of evidence the trial judgе expressed or intimated what had been proved, contrаry to
Code
§81-1104. "It is not reversible error, under section 81-1104 of the Code, for thе judge, in discussing with counsel the admissibility of testimony, the propriety of а nonsuit, the direction of a verdict, or similar matters in the progress of the trial, or in explaining his rulings upon questions of this nature, to refer to the evidence or to the statements of witnesses, provided he does not go out of the line of legitimate discussion uрon the point presented or use such language as to indiсate apparent or actual judicial approval or disparagement of any witness or of any part of thе testimony.”
Peters v. State,
Moreover, the defendant neither moved for a mistriаl nor offered
*555
objection to the alleged improper comment. Prejudicial questions or statements purportedly in violation of
Code
§81-1104 are not reversible error in the absence of a motion for mistrial or other objection.
Pulliam v. State,
Judgment affirmed.