In August 1980, аppellant was convicted of the January 23,1976, armed robberies of three people at Spencer Tire Company in Decatur, Georgia. Finding no merit in appellant’s enumerations of error, we affirm his convictions.
1. By a motion in limine, the state sought an order forbidding appellаnt’s counsel from cross examining the state’s expert fingerprint witness about actual cases in other jurisdictions. The trial court agreed that questions concerning actual cases were withоut the bounds of legitimate cross examination, but said that each question would be considered whеn asked.
The grant of the state’s motion in limine was not error despite appellant’s assertiоn that the ruling impermissibly limited the scope of cross examination of the state’s fingerprint expеrt. The “right to a thorough and sifting cross examination must be tempered and restricted so as not to infringе on privilege areas or wander into the realm of irrelevant testimony. Control of the crоss examination of a witness is to a great degree within the discretion of the trial court and will not be controlled unless abused. [Cits.]”
Eades v. State,
2. In his next enumeration of error, appellant maintains that the denial of his motion in limine was error. In that motion, appellant asked the court to prevent the introduction into evidence of any copies of appellant’s fingerprints because the introduction of such evidence was violative of appellant’s statе and federal constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
In
Creamer v.
State,
3. At trial, appellant and a defense witness (appellant’s brother-in-law) testified that they were both in Birminghаm, Alabama, from November 1975 through April or May 1976. Appellant’s brother-in-law emphatically stated thаt the two did not leave Birmingham during that time. In rebuttal, the state introduced certified copies of Atlаnta traffic citations issued to appellant on February 28, 1976, and disposed of in court on Marсh 2, 1976. In addition, the state’s investigating officer testified that he had found indications that appellant wаs also in the Decatur area on March 22 and 29, 1976. The trial court then instructed the jury that the evidenсe was admitted for the sole purpose of impeaching defense testimony that appellant had not been in the Decatur area during a particular time. Appellant maintains that the above-described evidence impermissibly placed appellant’s character in issue.
“The evidence contradicted appellant’s testimony and was admissible for the purpose of impeachment. A criminal defendant is subject to impeachment, and he may be impeached by disproving the facts to which he testified. Code Ann. § 38-1802;
Mitchell v.
State,
4. Lastly, appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence
*423
presented agаinst him. While none of the three victims was able to identify appellant as one of the perpetrators, there was evidence that one of the robbers had taken an addressed envelope from the desk of a victim. The envelope was recovered in the tire comрany building, and several fingerprints were lifted therefrom and preserved. In April 1978, and upon appеllant’s arrest in April 1980, the fingerprint expert compared appellant’s fingerprints with those found оn the envelope and concluded that the prints on the envelope were those оf appellant. When presented with the above evidence, a rational trier of faсt could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the armed robberies with which he was charged. Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgment affirmed.