People v. Cline

This case presents question as to whether record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for residential burglary, where fingerprint expert testified that print left on headphone case found at scene of crime matched defendant’s fingerprint. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction, found that expert’s opinion was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction because expert never mentioned utilizing verification step of ACE-V method in his fingerprint analysis. In its petition for leave to appeal, State argued that: (1) because testing method used by expert was not contested by defendant at trial, it should not have impacted Appellate Court’s review of sufficiency of evidence; and (2) Appellate Court erred in consulting materials outside record and in ultimately disregarding expert’s opinion in reliance on extrajudicial materials.