Court Opinion

ID: 9663827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:52:30.7341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:57.852410
License: Public Domain

McCown and Smith, JJ.,
concurring in result.
The evidence established that defendant Reichel’s palm print and fingerprints had been separately taken after his arrest in 1966. Both of these were identified and connected with the latent prints at the scene of the crime. The prosecution later introduced an additional fingerprint record of Reichel taken from the police files and likewise identified and connected it. The majority opinion concedes that the additional fingerprint identification as to Reichel was cumulative, but holds it “extremely relevant” and admissible. Where the fingerprint identification had already been established by proper evidence, the later introduction of additional fingerprints from the police files not only was cumulative, but the purpose of its introduction might reasonably be said to have been directed at the inference, of prior criminal activity and prior police contact rather than fingerprint identification. Under such circumstances, it was extremely “irrelevant” rather than “relevant” and it should have been inadmissible. This court should not even indirectly imply an approval of such procedure. In “a close case” or in a case in which the purpose as *308to evidence of “other crimes” is more clear, the majority holding on this issue is probably insupportable. People v. Van Cleave, 208 Cal. 295, 280 P. 983.