Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

304 So. 2d 537

Docket No. 74-755.

Henderson v. State

Lincoln R. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 10, 1974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-12-10

Relies on 265 So. 2d 685 - Ashley v. State · Jenkins v. State · 259 So. 2d 782 - Dargans v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-12-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1997

9 state decisions

60197419801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Legal Intern, for appellee.

¶3Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant was informed against for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor (petit larceny), tried by jury, found guilty and sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary.

¶6Appellant first urges as error the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion for mistrial based on the prosecution eliciting testimony of a prior arrest of the defendant, which served to infer a propensity on the defendant's part to engage in criminal conduct.

¶7This point on appeal arises out of the testimony of a prosecution witness that he was a corrections officer working in the jail at booking and fingerprinting and five months prior to the commission of the instant crime, he took the defendant's "standard" fingerprints.

¶8Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible, if it is relevant to a factual issue in the case unless its sole relevance is to prove the propensity to commit a crime. See Ashley v. State, Fla. 1972, 265 So.2d 685. An examination of the record clearly illustrates that identity was one of the major issues in the case sub judice and thus we find the testimony hereinabove to be relevant and therefore admissible. See Jenkins v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 276.

¶9*538 Defendant secondly contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt in that the only evidence presented which tended to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime was a latent fingerprint from the inside door of the coke machine at the scene of the crime.

¶10After a careful examination of the record, we conclude that there was competent substantial evidence to support the judgment of conviction as to the commission of the offense and the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator thereof. Cf. Dargans v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So.2d 782.

¶11Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

¶12Affirmed.

/304/so2d/537 · .json · Public domain