Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Elicitation of Testimony Regarding Prints of Smaller Person Found in Defendant's Bedroom

Text: The defendant also cites Officer Shaw's testimony regarding fingerprint evidence taken from defendant's bedroom as proof that the prosecution was smearing defendant. Officer Shaw testified that he found a latent fingerprint on the dresser mirror during an authorized search of defendant's bedroom. Shaw described the evidence as just a small portion of a print, as if it could have been made by a smaller person. Defense counsel objected, but the court overruled his objection and allowed Shaw to explain that the fingerprint did not match the victim's. In defendant's view, [t]he implication of this testimony was clear: it suggested that defendant had had another child in his bedroom at some time. Thus, the testimony impl[ied] that defendant had been guilty of other, similar misconduct. Defendant contends this deprived him of a fair trial. We find that any prejudice resulting from this comment was minimal. Shaw's statement regarding the smaller person was contained in his police report detailing his investigation. It came out during that testimony and was not specifically elicited by the prosecution. Moreover, the prosecutor immediately dropped the inquiry, neither pressing Shaw nor returning to the subject thereafter. Because the comment was brief and was not pressed by the prosecution, it could not have produced an improper result given the overwhelming evidence against defendant.