See also: FINGERPRINTS
SHOEPRINTS.

The comparison of footprints is an admissible form of identification in criminal cases.{footnote}Hale v. State, 101 So. 774 (Ala. App. Ct. 1924), cert denied, 101 So. 775 (1924); Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (1886); Paschal v. State, 229 S.E.2d 795 (Ga. App. Ct. 1976); Commonwealth v. Bartolini, 13 N.E.2d 382 (Mass.), cert. denied, 304 U.S. 565 (1938); People v. Sunset Bay, 67 N.Y.2d 787, 501 N.Y.S.2d 19, 492 N.E.2d 127 (1986) (photometric analysis); Moore v. State, 226 S.W. 415 (Tex. Crim. 1920); State v. Lapan, 141 A. 686 (Vt. 1928).{/footnote} A witness may also testify as to the position a person would have to be in to make a footprint found at the scene of a crime.{footnote}State v. Abbott, 654 S.W.2d 260 (Mo. App. Ct. 1983) (evidence technician properly allowed to testify as to the position a person would have to be in to make a footprint found on the outside wall of a bathtub in the victim’s home).{/footnote}  Expert testimony has been held sufficiently reliable to be admissible.{footnote}State v. Bullard, 322 S.E.2d 370 (N.C. 1984).{/footnote}

Bibliography

Judy E. Zelin, Annotation, Admissibility Of Bare Footprint Evidence, 45 A.L.R.4th 1178.