Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Fingerprint Testimony

Text: As his next claim of error, Defendant Thomas asserts that the trial court erred in permitting Officer Sims to testify despite stipulation that the fingerprint found on the stolen getaway car matched Defendant Bond. Thomas asserts that, after the stipulation, any testimony by the fingerprint expert was cumulative. The State responds that Defendant Thomas has waived this issue by failing to enter a contemporaneous objection to Officer Sims' testimony. See Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a). The State further contends that, although Defendant Bond did object to Officer Sims offering any testimony in lieu of the agreed upon stipulation, the objection by a co-defendant fails to preserve the issue on appeal for Defendant Thomas. See State v. Steve Bradford, No. 03C01-9607-CR-00278, 1998 WL 24417, at  (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, Jan. 20, 1998). Although the State's position is well-taken, we elect to review the issue on its merits. The trial court, in response to the expressed objections of Defendant Bond, found: I think that the state has a definite interest in demonstrating to the jury not only the specific facts involved here  that the print does belong to your client, but also the larger fact that  who the police officers were that worked on the case, the fact that the police were working on the case, the fact that all of this was a coordinated effort by police officers, lest some suggestion be made, in final argument, that the police dropped the ball.... I think the state has an interest in putting on proof to satisfy the jury that things were done and done right by the proper personnel. And so to that extent, I think there is an interest ... in at least putting a face with a name. By having Mr. Sims take the stand, the jury can see that Sergeant Hulley was accurate when she stated it was forwarded on to latent prints, and he can state  identify the exhibit as the one he examined. And then the stipulation can kick in, and he doesn't have to go any further than that. After the stipulation was introduced, Officer Sims testified briefly to explain the nature of a latent print and the process by which he receives prints for review. He further related that not all prints that are lifted have value in the sense that they can be matched. As previously indicated, [t]he admissibility of evidence is generally within the broad discretion of the trial court; absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision will not be reversed. State v. Edison, 9 S.W.3d 75, 77 (Tenn.1999). We review this issue, therefore, under an abuse of discretion standard. Defendant Thomas complains that Officer Sims' testimony was cumulative with regard to the stipulation as to Defendant Bond's fingerprints. To the extent that Sims' testimony was cumulative, if at all, we cannot conclude that the testimony was unfairly prejudicial to Defendant Thomas. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting introduction of the testimony.