State v. Reynolds

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Nay

    746 S.E.2d 21 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)

    Defendant does, however, contend that evidence of his fingerprints was not, alone, sufficient evidence of defendant's identity as the perpetrator to survive his motion to dismiss. In support of this argument, defendant cites State v. Reynolds, 18 N.C.App. 10, 13, 195 S.E.2d 581, 583 (1973), for the rule “that evidence given by a qualified expert that fingerprints found at the scene of a crime correspond with those of an accused, when accompanied by substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that such fingerprints could have been impressed only at the time the offense was committed, is sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit.” Even assuming, as defendant argues, that the State's evidence tended to show defendant and Mr. Ksor were friends and that defendant could, therefore, have left fingerprints on Mr. Ksor's car at any time, the fingerprint evidence here served to corroborate Mr. Leng's identification testimony.

  2. State v. Bradley

    65 N.C. App. 359 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that fingerprints in nonpublic portion of building where defendant was not an employee support reasonable inference of guilt and submission of case to jury

    The circumstances in this case are sufficient to support a reasonable inference and submit the question of defendant's guilt to the jury. We find much support for our position. See, e.g., State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291 (1951); State v. Reynolds, 18 N.C. App. 10, 195 S.E.2d 581 (1973); State v. Blackmon, 6 N.C. App. 66, 169 S.E.2d 472 (1969). Defendant cites State v. Scott, supra, in support of his position that there was insufficient evidence to withstand his motion.

  3. State v. Truesdale

    239 S.E.2d 286 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times
    In Truesdale,the defendant's fingerprints were discovered on the packaging of heroin in the possession of a person with whom he lived and with whom he was alleged to be complicit in the possession of heroin with the intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver. 34 N.C.App. at 580–81, 239 S.E.2d at 287.

    We recognize the rule that when the State relies on evidence of fingerprints, it must show not only the presence of the prints but additional circumstances which reasonably tend to show that the prints could only have been impressed at the time of the commission of the crime. State v. Reynolds, 18 N.C. App. 10, 195 S.E.2d 581 (1973). We think sufficient additional circumstances were shown in this case.

  4. State v. Burrell

    217 S.E.2d 751 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)

    Decision in this case depends upon application of the rule that "evidence given by a qualified expert that fingerprints found at the scene of a crime correspond with those of an accused, when accompanied by substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that such fingerprints could have been impressed only at the time the offense was committed, is sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit." State v. Reynolds, 18 N.C. App. 10, 13, 195 S.E.2d 581, 583 (1973). When the evidence in the present case is viewed in light of the foregoing rule, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict.

  5. State v. Miller

    26 N.C. App. 440 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    Decision in this case depends upon application of the rule that evidence showing that fingerprints found at the scene of a crime correspond with those of the accused, when accompanied by substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that such fingerprints could have been impressed only at the time the offense was committed, is sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit. State v. Reynolds, 18 N.C. App. 10, 195 S.E.2d 581 (1973) and cases therein cited. The question of whether the fingerprints could have been impressed only at the time when the crime was committed is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.