Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of residential burglary. Detective, who was admitted as an expert on latent fingerprint examination after extensive voir dire, testified that Defendant's fingerprint was found at scene of burglary. Detective described in detail the ACE-V methodology and testified that he followed that methodology in evaluating the latent fingerprint recovered. He did not provide explicit testimony as to his performance of the verification step. However, the absence of explicit testimony as to verification by another examiner was for jury to consider in determining the weight to accord Detective's identification. It was not error for court to admit detective's testimony and allow jury to determine its significance. (DELORT and HOFFMAN, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Burglary