Summary
In Couch, both victims described the defendant and stated that they saw the defendant, who had a conspicuous mole on his cheek, touch the can.
Summary of this case from Pierce v. StateOpinion
No. 585, 2002.
Submitted: April 8, 2003.
Decided: May 7, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID. No. 0104005738
Appeal dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
BRADY COUCH, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 585, 2002. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: April 8, 2003. Decided: May 7, 2003.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
Myron T. Steele, Justice:
This 7th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows:
1. A Grand Jury indicted Brady Couch, the appellant, on two counts of Robbery in the First Degree. The State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on one of the Robbery in the First Degree charges in exchange for Couch's agreement to a non-jury trial. On July 16, 2002, a Superior Court judge found Couch guilty.
2. In this appeal, Couch argues that the trial judge erred by denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence identifying Couch as the robber. Because we believe that the trier of fact could easily find from the circumstantial evidence that Couch was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude the trial judge did not err and affirm Couch's conviction.
3. George Batcher worked behind the counter at Wilmington's Ferschke's Beauty and Barber Supplies' store and Ted Cartos, the accountant, worked in the store's back office. On April 2, 2001, at approximately 4:15 p.m., a man entered the store, removed the item "Murray's Hair Dressing Pomade" from the shelf, and placed it on the counter. When Bratcher opened the register, the suspect struck him in the head. The suspect then took the money out of the register. Before the suspect could flee, Bratcher grabbed the suspect, and the two started to wrestle on the floor. At some point, Cartos came out to help, but eventually the suspect escaped. Bratcher and Cartos gave descriptions of the suspect to the police, including the fact that the suspect had a marble sized mole on his left cheek. Wilmington P.D.'s Officer Flaherty also lifted a latent fingerprint on the store's interior door and three fingerprints from the "Murray's Hair Dressing Pomade" that the suspect had placed on the counter. Less than three weeks later, Flaherty saw an individual who matched the description at 7th and West Street in Wilmington. That person gave Flaherty a fake name, but fingerprint identification identified him to be Brady Couch. Couch's fingerprints matched those found on the Pomade and the interior door.
4. Couch argues that the fingerprint evidence alone is insufficient for the State to meet its burden that he robbed the store. Couch relies on Monroe v. State.
652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995).
In Monroe, the defendant was charged with burglarizing an appliance store. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime were his fingerprints found on a shard of glass at the point of entry. We held that "the range of abundant, innocent explanations for the presence of Monroe's prints on the plexiglass shards was too vast for any rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of both charged offences — namely, identity."
5. This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion of judgment of acquittal to determine "whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
6. Monroe is clearly distinguishable from this case. In Monroe, the only evidence linking Monroe to the crime were his fingerprints found on the shard of glass. Here, in addition to the fingerprints, there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence identifying Couch as the robber. First, both victims gave a description of Couch, including the description of the marble sized mole on his left cheek. Later, the arresting officer immediately recognized the defendant based largely on the description of the marble sized mole. In addition, Couch's fingerprints were found on the Pomade the robber took from the shelf and placed on the counter. The likelihood that Couch had once touched that very item innocently sometime in the past is too remote to be coincidental. Finally, police also found Couch's prints on the interior door rather than the exterior door, indicating that the prints were from someone who had entered the store rather than from a passerby on the sidewalk. Batcher also testified that the store rarely had "in-and-out traffic," and that he did not recognize Couch to be a regular customer.
Id. at 567.
Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999) (quoting Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991).
Combining the direct fingerprint evidence with circumstantial evidence creates a strong inference that Couch was the robber. Given the well recognized standard for consideration of a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, we conclude that the trial judge did not err by denying Couch's motion. A rational trier of fact could easily have found that the circumstantial and fingerprint evidence identified Couch as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.