Court Opinion

ID: 9763472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:46:12.929827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:43.886924
License: Public Domain

*272Concurring Opinion by
Jacobs, J.:
While I agree with the result reached by the majority and the facts as stated in its opinion, I cannot agree that appellant’s reliance on the following statement from Commonwealth v. Cichy, 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 480, 323 A.2d 817 (1974). is unimportant: “Unless those circumstances [of each case] are such that the fingerprint could only have been impressed at the time and place the crime was committed, such evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Id. at 483, 323 A.2d at 818 (emphasis added).
In my opinion it was logical for appellant to rely on that statement from Cichy which was apparently based on prior law which required the evidence, when entirely circumstantial, to be such as “to exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt.” Commonwealth v. Elam, 221 Pa. Superior Ct. 315, 317, 293 A.2d 103, 104 (1972). Furthermore, two cases cited in Cichy, State v. Minton, 228 N.C. 518, 46 S.E.2d 296 (1948) and Anthony v. State, 85 Ga. App. 119, 68 S.E.2d 150 (1951) applied that same test to fingerprint evidence requiring it to point unerringly to the defendant’s guilt and exclude all other reasonable possibilities.
However, I would not permit appellant to benefit from his reliance on the above-quoted statement from Cichy. By requiring the circumstances to show that the fingerprint could only have been impressed at the time and place the crime was committed, that statement is inconsistent with the present law on circumstantial evidence in Pennsylvania and the law of other jurisdictions on fingerprint evidence. Circumstantial evidence need not disprove every other reasonable possibility but guilt although it must be sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of which he was charged. Commonwealth v. Elam, supra. Other jurisdictions have applied the following test to fingerprint evidence: to be sufficient to sustain a con*273viction the circumstances of each case must reasonably exclude the possibility that the fingerprint was impressed at a time and place other than that of the crime. United States v. Nazarok, 330 F. Supp. 1054 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Lawless v. State, 3 Md. App. 652, 241 A.2d 155 (1968); Avent v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 474, 164 S.E.2d 655 (1968).
To prevent a repetition of such reliance in future fingerprint cases I would hold that the above-quoted statement from Commonwealth v. Cichy, supra, is not controlling.
Van der Voort, J., joins in this concurring opinion.