A petition was filed in juvenile court alleging that appellant had committed the offenses of burglary, aggravated assault and motor vehicle theft. After a hearing, appellant was found to be in a state of delinquency and was committed to restrictive custody pursuant to Code Ann. § 24A-2302a. He appеals the juvenile court’s adjudication of delinquency.
1. A witness for the state, stipulated by appellаnt to be an expert in the field of fingerprint identification, testified that two latent fingerprints discoverеd at the crime scene matched with inked prints of appellant’s right middle and right ring fingers. The expert further tеstified that utilizing a “hand-held four-power magnifier,”he found a total of 17 points of similarity between the two lаtent prints and those of appellant. During cross-examination, counsel for appellant asked the expert to identify all 17 points of similarity. The witness demonstrated a willingness to identify those points of similarity visible to the naked eye but responded that it was impossible to show counsel all 17 points without sufficient magnification which was not present at trial. Upon appellant’s insistence that the expert show all 17 points of similarity, the state interposed an objection on the basis that appellant was requiring the witness to perform an impossibility. The trial court, in effect, sustained the objection and ruled that “I will not require [the witness] to do that which [he] said [he] can’t do without magnification.” On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court’s ruling and failure to compel the expert “to provide enlarged prints or equipment so that he could be thoroughly examined on the comparison of the prints,” had the effect of impermissibly restricting his right to a thorough cross-examination.
As previously noted, appellant stipulated at trial that the witness was qualified as an expert in the field of fingerprint identification. As such, the witness was qualified to state an opinion based on his analysis and comparison that the fingerprints found at
Code Ann. § 38-1705 provides that “[t]he right of cross-examination, thorough and sifting, shall belong to every party as to the witnesses called аgainst him . . .” However, “[t]he scope of cross examination lies largely within the discretion of the trial сourt and will not be disturbed absent a showing that this discretion has been abused. [Cit.]” Hodge v. State,
2. The general grounds are enumerated as error. The state’s evidence showed that prior to the actual commission of the crimes in question, the perpetrator disconnected the electrical power and telephone at the victim’s home. The disconnection of the telephone was accomplished by removing thе “phone box cover” which was located on the outside of the house and severing the wires from their connections. As discussed in Division 1 of this opinion, an expert witness identified two latent fingerprints lifted from the “phone box cover” as those of appellant. Appellant denied that the prints were his and testified that he had never been in the victim’s yard. The victim testified that, only minutes before the attack, the telephone was operating properly. While the victim did not have the opportunity to observe the face of her assailant because the attack took placе in the dark, she was able to testify that appellant was “about the same size and color” as the perpetrator.
Under the circumstances of the instant case, we find that the trior of fact wаs authorized to conclude that the fingerprints found on
Judgment affirmed.