Foot-Prints

Impressions made by the feet of persons, or their shoes, boots, or other covering for the feet, on the ground, snow, or other surface. In the same category are also impressions of shoenails, patches, abrasions, or other peculiarities therein. When found at or near the scene of a crime they often lead to the identification of guilty parties. “The presumption founded on these circumstances has been appealed to by mankind in all ages, and In inquiries of every kind, and it is so obviously the dictate of reason, if not of instinct, that it would be superfluous to dwell upon its importance.” Wills, Circ. Bv. 194. It is said that evidence of footprints and their correspondence with defendant’s feet may be proved even when his agency is disputed, not as alone convincing, or indeed, available, but as tending to establish a case; Whart. Cr. Ev. § 795; even whore the defendant’s proof tended to establish an alibi; Williams v. State, 3.S Tex. Cr. R. 128. 25 S. W. 620, 28 S. W. mS, 47 Am. St. Rep. 21. Evidence of footprints alone has been held insufficient to convict; 1 F. & F. 354; State v..Johnson, 19 Ta. 2.30; Green v. State, 17 Fla. 669; and unless the measurement is careful and accurate, or there is some peculiarity shown, the probative force is slight; Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240, 12 South. 661; People v. Newton, 3 N. Y. Cr. Rep. 406; Shannon v. State, 67 Ga. 482; State v. Reed, 89 Mo. 168, 1 S. W. 225; but in many cases such peculiarities have been shown and evidence of the footprints admitted; Preston v. State, 8 Tex. App. 30; Schoolcraft v. People, 117 111. 271, 7 N. E. 649; Griggs v. State, 69 Ga. 738; State v. Grebe, 17 Kan. 458; 10 Crim. L. Mag. 890; but a conviction on such evidence will be reversed for refusal to admit proof for the defendant that he has never worn a shoe which would make such a print; Stone v. State, 12 Tex. App. 219; the discovery and comparison should be prompt with relation to the crime; Mc Daniel v. State, 63 Ga. 263; and the measurement should be accurate; Stone V. State, 12 Tex. App. 219; Bouldln v. State, 8 Tex. App. 332; though it need not be imcy; People v. Mc Curdy, 68 Cal. 676, 10 Pac. 207. The Identification of such tracks is a matter of common observation, which does not require expert testimony; Murphy v. People, 63 N. Y. 590; Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569; State V. Morris, 84 N. C. 756; and only the peculiarity of the tracks and the facts of identification may be proved, but not the opinion of the witness whether they were made by the defendant; Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320; Hodge v. State, 98 Ala. 10, 13 South. 385, 39 Am. SL Rep. 17; but a witness has been permitted to prove the measurement of the tracks and their exact correspondence with the shoe of the defendant; Mc Lain v. State, 30 Tex. App. 482, 17 S. W. 1092, 28 Am. St. Rep. 934; the examination and the comparison need not be made in the presence of the defendant; State v. Morris, 84 N. C. 756; nor can he be compelled to put his foot in the track to make evidence against himself; Day v. State, 63 Ga. 667; but where he was compelled to do so the evidence was admitted; State v. Graham, 74 N. C. 646, 21 Am. Rep. 493; and tracks have been voluntarily made by the accu.sed before the jury for compari.son with those proved; Gregory v. State, 80 Ga. 269, 7 S. E. 222. Comparison of the shoes with the footmarks should be made before the former are put in the marks; 1 Lew. C. C. 116; and where this was not done the evidence on the subject was rejected; id. Such evidence, even if established beyond doubt, is liable, as in all ca.ses of circumstantial evidence, to be the subject of fabrication, or erroneous inference; see the case of Mayenc, Gabriel 403, where the shoes of another person were put on by one committing a crime; and the celebrated case of Thornton, fully reported in WMlls, Circ. Ev. 286, where an alibi was successfully proved after apparently conclusive circumstantial evidence, including footprints. Proof may be made by horse-tracks corresponding with those made by a horse of defendant; Goldsmith v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 22 S. W. 406; or that shoes taken from such horse fitted the tracks; Campbell V, State, 23 Ala. 44; and when the prisoner had reversed the shoes of his horse after reaching the house, to give the impression that two persons had been there, the artifice led to his detection by the discovery of recent nail-marks in the horse’s hoof; Spooner’s Case, 2 Chand. Am. Cr. Tr.; but horsetracks alone are not sufficient to convict; State V. Melick, 65 la. 614, 22 N. W. 895; and see Bouldin v. State, 8 Tex. App. 332. For a full dlscu.ssion of the subject, see Wills, Circ. Bv. 194. See Evidence; Incrimination.

In the law of evidence, Impressions made upon earth, snow, or other surface by the feet of persons, or by the shoes, boots, or other covering of thefeet. Burrill, Cire. Ey, 204.