See also: FOOTPRINTS
IDENTIFICATION.

§ 1.  Generally

The comparison of fingerprints by a qualified witness is an admissible form of identification in criminal cases.{footnote}United States v. Perillo, 164 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1947); United States v. Chiarelli, 192 F.2d 528  (7^th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 913, reh’g denied, 342 U.S. 950 (1951).
Sims v. State, 46 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1950); Garcia v. State, 229 P. 103 (Ariz. 1924); People v. Bailes, 129 Cal. App. 3d 265, 180 Cal. Rptr. 792 (1982) (fingerprint evidence is "’the strongest evidence of identity, and is ordinarily sufficient  alone to identify the defendant.’"), quoting People v. Gardner, 71 Cal.2d 843, 849, 79 Cal.Rptr. 743, 457 P.2d 575 (1969); People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478, 165 P.2d 3, aff’d, 332 U.S. 46, reh’g denied, 332 U.S. 784 (1946); Martin v. State, 129 So. 112 (Fla. 1930); People v. Jennings, 96 N.E. 1077 (Ill. 1911); Commonwealth v. Morris, 662 N.E.2d 683, 685 (Mass. 1996); State v. Cooper, 67 A.2d 298 (N.J. 1949); People v. Doty, 269 App. Div. 752, 54 N.Y.S.2d 368 (1945); Bingle v. State, 161 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. 1942).
See also People v. Eyler, 549 N.E.2d 268 (Ill. 1989) (Superglue may be used to enhance a fingerprint, and the results have been held admissible).
But see Commonwealth v. Drayton, 434 N.E2d 997, 1005-1006 (1982) (fingerprint expert had no adequate basis for testifying that probability that the  fingerprints of two different persons would match on twelve points of  comparison was one out of 387 trillion).{/footnote}  Courts have taken judicial notice of the reliability of fingerprinting as a method of identification.{footnote}Piquett v. United States, 81 F2d 75 (7^th Cir. 1936), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 664 (1936).
 People v. Jennings, 96 N.E. 1077 (Ill. 1911); Murphy v. State, 40 A.2d 239 (Md. 1944); Lamble v. State, 114 A. 346 (N.J. 1921); State v. Rogers, 64 S.E.2d 572 (N.C. 1951); Stacy v. State, 292 P. 885 (Okla. Crim. 1930); Grice v. State, 151 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. 1941); State v. Lapan, 141 A. 686 (Vt. 1928); Bridges v. State, 19 N.W.2d 529 (Wis. 1945).
See also Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 727 (1969) ("fingerprinting is an inherently more reliable and effective crime-solving tool than eyewitness identifications or confessions").{/footnote}  See also JUDICIAL NOTICE; SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE–Judicial Notice of Reliability.  The fact that other fingerprints in addition to the defendant’s are found at the scene of the crime were not identified or explained goes to the weight of the fingerprint evidence rather than its admissibility.{footnote}State v. Hall, 262 So. 2d 498, 499 (La. 1972); State v. Wimberly, 787 P.2d 729, 735 (Kan. 1990).{/footnote} 

§ 2.  Authentication and Exemplars

Fingerprints may be authenticated by having either the jury or an expert witness compare them with prints already authenticated, so long as there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the prints belong to the person claimed.{footnote}FRE 901(a), (b)(3). {/footnote}  The party introducing expert fingerprint testimony might be required to produce exemplars used for comparison.{footnote}See United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32, 47 (2d Cir. 1978) (citing FRE 705).{/footnote}  Fingerprint cards made pursuant to prior, unrelated arrests are admissible where they contain no evidence of any prior arrests, indictments, or convictions.{footnote}State v. Willette, 455 S.E.2d 621 (N.C. 1995).
See also State v. Hicks, 649 P.2d 267 (Ariz. 1982) (no error to permit police identification technician to refer to comparison of prints at crime scene to “known prints” where there was no mention of any prior arrest); Hinton v. State, 626 S.W.2d 781, 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (no error for prosecutor and witness to refer to defendant’s fingerprints as being on file with police department).{/footnote}

It has been held that a fingerprint card purporting to show the defendant’s fingerprints may be admitted into evidence without the testimony of the person who took the fingerprints and made the card, so long as the foundational witness is familiar with the standard procedures for fingerprints.{footnote}People v. Crosslin, 251 Cal. App.2d 968, 975-77, 60 Cal. Rptr. 309 (1967).{/footnote}  Copies of the police department fingerprint cards have been held admissible under the hearsay exception for business records.{footnote}Straub v. State, 567 N.E.2d 87, 93-94 (Ind. 1991) (also holding that copies of cards need not be certified).{/footnote}

§ 3.  Expert Testimony

A qualified expert witness may testify as to the identity of fingerprints.{footnote}State v. Murdock, 689 P.2d 814, 818 (Kan. 1984).
23 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 876; 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law § 616; 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence § 123; 2 Jones on Evidence § 435 (5th ed. 1958).{/footnote}  No showing under the Frye test need be made to admit expert comparison testimony.{footnote}Commonwealth v. Ghee, 607 N.E.2d 1005 (Mass. 1993).{/footnote}  See also SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.  It has been held that a former DEA agent and private investigator with experience but no formal schooling in fingerprinting was properly found unqualified to give expert testimony on the subject.{footnote}Dillon v. State, 877 S.W.2d 915 (Ark. 1994).{/footnote}

Even where the expert has no recollection of the points of identity, made no notes reflecting his or her out-of-court comparison of the fingerprints, and has no enlargements of the fingerprints compared for the jury to see, such issues go to the weight and credibility of the expert testimony, not to its admissibility.{footnote}People v. Abner, 209 Cal. App. 2d 484, 25 Cal. Rptr. 882 (1962); State v. Murdock, 689 P.2d 814, 819 (Kan. 1984).{/footnote}

It has been held that there was no error in permitting  an expert witness to describe as "astronomical" the odds that another person’s fingerprint would match the identified characteristics of the defendant’s fingerprint.{footnote}People v. Hunt, 133 Cal. App. 3d 543, 558, 184 Cal. Rptr. 197, 204 (1982).{/footnote}

§ 4.  Sufficiency to Sustain Conviction

Where there is evidence that a person touched an object, and it is later proved that the defendant’s fingerprints were on that object, the finder of fact may infer that the defendant was present at the time the object was touched.{footnote}Commonwealth v. Morris, 662 N.E.2d 683 (Mass. 1996).{/footnote}  It has been held that a conviction may be sustained where fingerprint evidence is the only substantive evidence linking the defendant to the crime.{footnote}Borum v. United States, 127 App. D.C. 48, 380 F.2d 595 (1967); United States v. Cary, 152 App. D.C. 321, 470 F.2d 269 (1972).
Lee v. State, 931 S.W.2d 433 (Ark. 1996).{/footnote}  Even unreliable fingerprint evidence can sustain a conviction is it is corroborated by other evidence.{footnote}United States v. Harris, 530 F.2d 576 (4th Cir. 1976).{/footnote}  A conviction cannot be predicated on fingerprints removed from objects in the absence of evidence indicating that such objects were generally inaccessible to defendant, and thus must have been placed there during the crime.{footnote}Borum v. United States, 380 F.2d 595 (D.C. Cir. 1967); United States v. Nazarok, 330 F. Supp. 1054 (E.D. Pa. 1971).
State v. Wimberly, 787 P.2d 729, 734 (Kan. 1990); State v. Bass, 303 N.C. 267, 278 S.E.2d 209 (1981); State v. Scott, 296 N.C. 519, 251 S.E.2d 414 (1979); Crouch v. State, 498 S.W.2d 97 (Tenn. 1973); Dues v. State, 456 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. Cr. App.1970) (evidence insufficient where prior to the burglary the defendant and the fingerprinted object had been in close vicinity).
See also People v. Rhodes, 422 N.E.2d 605, 608 (Ill. 1981) (affirming convictions, stating, “In order to sustain a conviction solely on fingerprint evidence, fingerprints corresponding to the fingerprints of the defendant must have been found in the immediate vicinity of the crime under such circumstances as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the fingerprints were impressed at the time the crime was committed.”); Commonwealth v. Morris, 662 N.E.2d 683, 685 (Mass. 1996) (If the only identification evidence is the defendant’s fingerprint at the crime scene, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fingerprint was placed there during the crime.){/footnote}  On the other hand, where the prosecution presents evidence tending to show that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time the crimes were committed, a conviction will be upheld.{footnote}People v. Bailes, 129 Cal. App. 3d 265, 180 Cal. Rptr. 792 (1982); State v. Montgomery, 461 S.E.2d 732 (N.C. 1995) (substantial evidence required); Phelps v. State, 594 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Annotation, Fingerprints, Palm Prints, or Bare Footprints As Evidence, 28 A.L.R.2d 1115.