Mitchell v. State

Even though the trial court refrained from qualifying the state's witness as a finger print expert, the detective's years of experience in identifying fingerprints qualified him to give an expert opinion on whether the prints found at the crime scene matched the defendant's.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Dennis Mitchell appeals his conviction of burglary. He claims the trial court erred by: 1 admitting improper hearsay testimony identifying him as the burglar; 2 admitting improper hearsay testimony regarding his possession of items stolen in the burglary; 3 allowing expert testimony of fingerprint evidence from a non-expert witness; 4 failing to grant a mistrial on the ground that the State’s use at trial of his fingerprint card from a prior arrest placed his character in issue; and 5 misstating in a jury instruction that the court bore the burden of proving Mitchell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell also asserts his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance because he did not obtain and present expert testimony to combat the State’s fingerprint evidence.

We find that the out-of-court statement regarding Mitchell’s identity was admissible to explain the reasonableness of the police investigation. The statement regarding Mitchell’s possession of the stolen articles was admissible as a prior consistent statement. The State’s witness on fingerprint identification was properly allowed to render his opinion. The manner in which the prior fingerprint card was used did not place Mitchell’s character in issue. The court’s misstatement did not prejudice Mitchell in the context of the jury charge taken as a whole. And, finally, Mitchell has not shown that he was prejudiced by deficient performance from his trial counsel. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court.

Mitchell v. State

Even though the trial court refrained from qualifying the state's witness as a finger print expert, the detective's years of experience in identifying fingerprints qualified him to give an expert opinion on whether the prints found at the crime scene matched the defendant's.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report