Is a fingerprint found on duct tape sufficient to convict a defendant?

Fingerprint evidence is strong evidence of identity, and is ordinarily sufficient alone to identify a defendant. The jury is entitled to draw inferences about how and when a defendant's prints came to be on an object and to weigh the evidence including the opinion of a fingerprint expert. (People v. Gardner (1969) 71 Cal.2d 843, 849.)

Defendant argues that a fingerprint found on a movable object at a crime scene cannot, standing alone, establish he was one of the perpetrators of the robbery, because there was no evidence of how or when the print was impressed on the duct tape. He relies principally on Birt v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 934 (Birt), where the court held that a fingerprint found on a cigarette lighter inside a rental van used to commit a burglary was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction. That case is distinguishable because the cigarette lighter was found in a van parked outside the home where the burglary occurred, and "there was no evidence that [the defendant's] fingerprints were found either on the burglarized premises or on any of the stolen property." (Id. at p. 938.) Here, defendant's print was found not only inside the burglarized premises, but on an immediate instrumentality of the crime. Further, the Birt court supported its conclusion with evidence not present in this case: that the rental van

Page 5