Opinion
Record No. 1221-93-1
Decided: July 19, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON, John D. Gray, Judge
Affirmed.
Robert A. Boester (Hawkins, Burcher and Boester, on brief), for appellant.
Jerry P. Slonaker, Senior Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Fitzpatrick
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to sustain Bartlett's convictions. "[F]ingerprint evidence need be joined only with evidence of other circumstances tending to reasonably exclude the hypothesis that the print was made at some other time than during commission of the crime." Turner v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 141, 148, 235 S.E.2d 357, 361 (1977). Appellant's fingerprint was found on a bent window crossbar, encased inside two panes of a permanently closed window which had been broken with a brick. The crossbar was inaccessible from either side without breaking the window glass. Appellant did not install the crossbars, and neither the crossbars nor the windows had ever been repaired. We find that this evidence eliminates any hypothesis of innocence and hold that the evidence is sufficient for a rational finder of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the burglar.
Appellant argues that because other fingerprints were found at the burglarized business, and that no identification was made of those prints, the evidence is insufficient. However, no other fingerprints were found on the crossbar. Indeed, in a place of business open to the public, one would expect to find other fingerprints, and their presence in places of public access would in no way exculpate appellant.
Accordingly, we affirm Bartlett's convictions.
Affirmed.