Court Opinion

ID: 9577734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:25.552656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:09.598025
License: Public Domain

McGRAW, Justice,
dissenting:
In Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Noe, 160 W.Va. 10, 230 S.E.2d 826 (1976), this Court held:
Fingerprint evidence, being circumstantial evidence, will not sustain a conviction in a criminal case when such evidence, as presented, is the only evidence linking defendant to the commission of the crime, creates a mere suspicion of guilt, does not prove the actual commission of the crime charged and fails to prove guilt to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The defendant in the instant proceeding, as in Noe, offered evidence explaining the appearance of his fingerprints at the scene of the crime. The majority’s “other” evidence offered to establish the defendant’s guilt is more conjecture than actual evidence of guilt. The defendant established that he had access to the bedroom, a point not contested by the victims. Although the victims testified the defendant was accompanied by Mrs. Wein at any time he was in the bedroom, it must be remembered that he had been employed by the victims for eight years and that casual movement about the premises in connection with his duties over that period would have gone relatively unnoticed. The fact that the defendant left the premises upon hearing of the robbery also reveals little in the absence of testimony that he did so without finishing the task for which he was summoned. Likewise, the fact that no breaking occurred is irrelevant, particularly in light of the fact that the defendant possessed no keys to the house. On the one hand, the victims testified that the defendant did not have access to the bedroom, and yet, on the other hand, asserted that he removed items stored there. Obviously, these two assertions are mutually exclusive. Finally, the description of the gold watch the defendant attempted to sell was insufficient to establish that it was one of the watches stolen from the Wein residence. The defendant offered evidence to explain his possession of the gold watch, and the insurance company employees admitted that the defendant often had attempted to sell items to them, such as candy and fruit. In the instant proceeding, as in Noe, the evidence presented linking the defendant to the commission of the crime created only a mere suspicion of guilt, did not prove the actual commission of the crime charged, and failed to prove guilt to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Accordingly, I dissent from the affirmance of the defendant’s conviction.
I am authorized to say that MILLER, C.J., joins herein.