 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maples v. State3/31/1999
s previously arrested for driving under the influence, driving with a suspended license, and speeding. The State and the appellant agreed that only a redacted photostatic copy of the fingerprint card would be submitted to the jury. Officer Harding, the officer who took the fingerprints, testified at trial. During the State's direct examination of Officer Harding, the following occurred:
"[Harding]: When they are booked in or brought into the city jail for some reason, we take their fingerprints and pictures and process them.
"[Prosecutor]: At some period of time did you take Mr. Maples's fingerprints?
"[Harding]: Yes, sir, I did." (R. 2379-80.)
After the prosecutor finished his direct examination of Officer Harding, the appellant moved for a mistrial, claiming that Harding's testimony indicated that he had previously been arrested. A motion for a mistrial must be made as soon as the grounds for the motion become apparent, and "'" he motion is untimely if it is not made until the Conclusion of the witness's testimony."'" LaFontaine v. State, 668 So.2d 119, 121 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995) (quoting Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 144 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994)). Thus, his motion for a mistrial was untimely. Furthermore, the appellant did not object when the fingerprint card was later admitted into evidence. Thus, we review this issue for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P.
In Woodson v. State, 405 So.2d 967 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 969 (Ala. 1981), we set forth the following general rule for the admission of fingerprint cards:
" he admission of a defendant's fingerprint identification card is not impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant where the card was altered prior to its introduction so that it did not disclose the defendant's criminal record. See Annot. 28 A.L.R.2d 1115 at Section 12 (1953). No prejudicial error has been found where the card does not indicate any prior criminal record or where such has been deleted or obliterated. United States v. Mancini, 396 F. Supp. 75 (E.D. Pa. 1975); State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408, 356 A.2d 147 (1974); Bradshaw v. State, 132 Ga.App. 363, 208 S.E.2d 173 (1974); Edmonds v. State, 5 Md.App. 132, 245 A.2d 618 (1968); State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 321, 200 S.E.2d 626 (1973); Lester v. State, 416 P.2d 52 (Okl. Cr. 1966); Burton v. State, 471 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Cr. App 1971).
"The date (even if it is before the offense involved in the trial) and the place of taking (the police department) need not be eliminated from the fingerprint record before the card is introduced into evidence. Parrish v. State, 366 So.2d 530 (Fla. App. 1979).
"Each case of alleged error in the admission of a fingerprint record taken pursuant to another criminal offense and prior to the charge for which the accused is presently on trial must be Judged upon its own merits." 405 So.2d at 968-69.
The redacted copy of the fingerprint card did not contain any reference to the appellant's prior arrest record. The offenses involved and the headings "Date Arrested" and "Date of Offense" were deleted from the copy of the fingerprint card. Furthermore, Harding never testified that the appellant was booked into the jail or that he was arrested. In fact, the State did not present any evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding fingerprinting the appellant.
The appellant argues that the admission of the fingerprint card and of the testimony about the fingerprint card was extremely prejudicial because he argued that his lack of a significant criminal history was a mitigating circumstance. According to the appellant, the jury might have used this evidence to reject this mitigating circ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|