Opinion ID: 1611682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cochran v. Ward

Text: First, it does not appear that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with Cochran. Although the Court of Criminal Appeals in Belisle concluded that [t]here is no indication that the jury was made aware of the contents of the fingerprint card, 11 So.3d at 291, it does not appear that the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the jury did not examine or consider the fingerprint card. Instead, it appears that the Court of Criminal Appeals was merely distinguishing this case from Ex parte Johnson and Brown v. State, 369 So.2d 881 (Ala.Crim. App.1979), in which police officers testified regarding fingerprint cards being admitted into evidence and, thus, focused the jury's attention on those fingerprint cards. See Belisle, 11 So.3d 291 (`The circumstances of this case are clearly not as compelling as those of Johnson and Brown. ' (quoting Thomas v. State, 824 So.2d 1, 18 (Ala. Crim.App.1999))); Ex parte Johnson, 507 So.2d at 1354 (On direct examination, Officer Brand was asked whether the name of the person whose print was taken was on both sides of the [fingerprint] card and whether the person was asked to sign the card.); and Brown, 369 So.2d at 883 (Officer McDonald stated that the appellant had been admitted to jail and fingerprinted `about a year or two ago' ....). Therefore, it does not appear that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with Cochran, and Belisle is not entitled to a reversal of his conviction or sentence on this issue.