Case Name: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Raymond Michael QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Utah Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 2004-11-12
Citations: 103 P.3d 168
Docket Number: No. 20030471-CA
Parties: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Raymond Michael QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: Before Judges BENCH, DAVIS, and THORNE.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 103
Pages: 168–171

Head Matter:
2004 UT App 418
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Raymond Michael QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 20030471-CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
Nov. 12, 2004.
David C. Biggs and Kent R. Hart, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, and Christopher D. Ballard, Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges BENCH, DAVIS, and THORNE.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BENCH, Associate Presiding Judge:
1 Raymond Michael Quintana appeals his convictions for burglary, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-202 (2008), and theft, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-404 (2008).
T2 Quintana first argues that fingerprint evidence is inherently unreliable and thus inadmissible under rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. We review a trial court's decision to admit expert evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Schultz, 2002 UT App 366, ¶ 18, 58 P.3d 879.
T3 Rule 702 provides that "[1lf scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." Utah R. Evid. 702. Admissibility under rule 702 hinges on "whether . 'the evidence will be helpful to the finder of fact." " State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1361 (Utah 1993) (quoting State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388, 398 n. 8 (1989)).
{4 If an expert testifies regarding "novel scientific principles and techniques," then the court first applies the separate "threshold reliability test" of State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989). Schultz, 2002 UT App 366 at ¶ 21, 58 P.3d 879. However, if the expert testifies regarding scientific methods that have " 'attained general acceptance in . the relevant scientific community,' " the additional Rimmasch test does not apply. Id. at ¶ 22 (alteration in original) (quoting Patey v. Lainhart, 1999 UT 31, ¶ 16, 977 P.2d 1193).
T5 Quintana argues that lack of empirical research on fingerprint evidence requires us to apply the Rimmasch test. However, we conclude that fingerprint identification is not novel scientific evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 266 (4th Cir.) ("Fingerprint identification has been admissible as reliable evidence in eriminal trials in this country since at least 1911."), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 888, 124 S.Ct. 220, 157 L.Ed.2d 159 (2003); United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 682 (8th Cir.2003) ("Fingerprint evidence and analysis is generally accepted."); United States v. Havvard, 260 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir.2001) ("[Flingerprint-ing techniques have been tested in the adversarial system...."
I 6 The case of State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 (Utah 1992), supports the notion that fingerprint evidence is not novel and raises no special evidentiary concerns. In Hamilton, the defendant argued that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support his murder conviction because the prosecution presented no evidence establishing that the fingerprints were left at the time the crime was committed. See id. at 236. However, the Utah Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that "we . treat[ ] fingerprint evidence like any other evidence and [do not] evaluate[ ] its sufficiency to support a conviction by a separate, more stringent standard." Id. at 237. Thus, the supreme court clearly indicated that fingerprint evidence is not "subject to reliability problems" sufficient to justify special treatment. Id. In light of Hamilton and a longstanding reliance on fingerprint evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the fingerprint expert's testimony.
T7 Quintana next argues that, even assuming the admissibility of the fingerprint identification, the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Quintana's position is similar to that of the defendant in Hamilton. Quintana contends that where fingerprint identification is the only evidence supporting conviction, the State must offer additional evidence establishing that he left the prints at the time of the crime. See id. at 286. The Utah Supreme Court has already rejected this argument: "We treat[ ] fingerprint evidence like any other piece of evidence whether or not there is additional evidence." Id. at 237. The jury therefore could have properly concluded that the single fingerprint found on a laquer box in the victims' home belonged to Quintana and that the fingerprint was left at the time the home was burglarized. See id. at 236 (noting that on appeal, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict).
T8 Finally, Quintana contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206 (2003). Quintana argues that because the State did not present evidence showing when the fingerprint was left, the jury could have concluded that he entered the home at a time prior to the burglary and touched the box with only the intent of committing erimi-nal trespass. We review the trial court's determination of this issue for correctness. See State v. Knight, 2003 UT App 354, ¶ 8, 79 P.3d 969.
T9 To demonstrate error, Quintana must show that the evidence at trial provided " 'a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense."" State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152, 159 (Utah 1988) (quoting Utah Code section 76-1-402(4) (1973)). However, the evidence here presented no rational basis for a conviction on the lesser included offense. As Quintana has noted, he "has never admitted entering the [victims'] home at the time of the burglary." Indeed, he has never admitted to entering the home at any time. In order for the jury to rationally convict on the lesser included offense, Quintana must point to some evidence indicating that he entered the home at a time other than the burglary. See State v. Cox, 826 P.2d 656, 662-68 (Utah Ct.App.1992) ("No evidence was presented suggesting that [the] defendant entered the property with intent to commit a crime other than theft."). Such evidence is absent here, and the trial court did not err when refusing to instruct the jury on the proposed lesser included offense.
110 Accordingly, we affirm the convie-tions.
11 I CONCUR: JAMES Z. DAVIS, Judge.
. We also note that Quintana presented no evidence of irregularity in the identification in his case. The Salt Lake City Crime Laboratory requires that two fingerprints share a minimum of ten characteristics to support an identification. Here, the expert identified over fourteen matching characteristics.