P. v. Wooden
On the fourth day of the burglary trial of defendants Eric Tremayne Wooden and Adrian Keith Wooden,[1]the prosecutor learned for the first time that the burglary scene had been examined for fingerprints. The police reports in the case made no mention of fingerprinting. A single fingerprint had been recovered, but was not suitable for identification through the automated fingerprint identification system. After the presentation of evidence and during argument to the jury, the prosecutor learned that the fingerprint did not belong to either defendant. The trial court precluded presentation of evidence pertaining to the fingerprint at trial and later prohibited defense argument to the jury on the lack of fingerprint evidence.
We conclude the manner in which issues pertaining to the fingerprint evidence were resolved at trial was error. However, Court hold that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Wooden