Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 602 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CACR11-791 Opinion Delivered October 31, 2012 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI EDWARD VINCENT SMITH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH APPELLANT DIVISION [No. CR2008-4909] V. HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge Appellant Edward Vincent Smith appeals from his convictions for residential burglary and theft of property. On appeal, he claims that the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the charges because the State failed to introduce substantial evidence to show that he entered the residence at issue and exercised unauthorized control over the property of another person. We disagree and affirm Smith’s convictions. A two-count felony information was filed against Smith on November 26, 2008. In the information, the State alleged that on September 28, 2008, Smith committed the offenses of residential burglary, a Class B felony, and theft of property valued in excess of $2500, a Class B felony. Smith stood trial in circuit court on November 29, 2010, after having waived his right to be tried by a jury. A circuit judge, sitting as the trier-of-fact, found Smith guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment for each offense. It is from these convictions and resulting sentences that Smith now appeals.
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 602 At trial, the victim Troy Moore testified that his residence was burglarized on September 28, 2008. He stated that the back door to his home had been left ajar, but there was no sign of forced entry. He also noted that the kitchen-window glass had been broken. He noticed several items missing, including a DVD player, gold bracelet, small television, signed Troy Aikman football card, and computer. Moore testified that the fair-market value of the missing items was approximately $6000. A member of the Little Rock Police Department’s Crime Scene Investigation Unit, Stan Wilhite, also testified at trial. He stated that on September 28, 2008, he collected evidence from Moore’s home at 205 Dryad in Little Rock, Arkansas. The evidence he collected included fingerprints from a piece of glass that was on the ground underneath the window. Wilhite noted that this area looked to be the logical point of entry. There was a thumb print on one side of the glass. The other side of the glass contained prints for the index, middle, and ring fingers. He stated that it appeared that the glass had been manually removed from the window frame. The fingerprints were positively identified as belonging to Smith by the crime-scene specialist, Annette Tracy. She placed her level of certainty at 100% as to the prints belonging to Smith. Further, Tracy’s positive identification was verified by two other crime-lab employees. Smith moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing that the only evidence linking him to the burglary was the fingerprinted glass and that was insufficient to support the charges. After the court denied the motion, Smith took the stand. He stated that he was living near Moore’s residence when he heard glass breaking. He took his dog to investigate, but the dog ran ahead of him. When he arrived at the scene the dog was standing on a piece of broken glass, so 2
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 602 he picked up the piece of glass and moved the dog out of the way. He admitted that after leaving the scene he did not contact the police. He then rested and renewed his motion for directed verdict. The court found him guilty of both charges, specifically noting that his explanation of events was “really unreasonable.” For his sole point on appeal, Smith contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient to connect him to the burglary because it only consisted of his fingerprints being found on a piece of broken glass outside of a residence. If this were in fact all of the evidence linking Smith to the burglary, he would be correct. As noted by Smith, fingerprints found on the exterior of a residence or vehicle, standing alone, are insufficient to support a conviction for entering and committing theft. Turner v. State, 103 Ark. App. 248, 288 S.W.3d 669 (2008). However, here, there is additional evidence linking Smith to the burglary and theft-of-property. First, the circuit court found Smith’s explanation of how his fingerprints got on the glass to be highly unreasonable. And, the trier of fact may give weight to false and improbable statements made by an accused in explaining suspicious circumstances. Eaton v. State, 98 Ark. App. 39, 46, 249 S.W.3d 812, 817 (2007). In fact, an improbable explanation of suspicious circumstances can be considered as proof of guilt. Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608, 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999). Further, Investigator Wilhite affirmatively testified that the placement of the fingerprints on the glass showed that the glass had been manually removed from the window after it had been broken. This is more compelling evidence of criminal activity than simply finding a fingerprint on a piece of shattered glass. As such, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Affirmed. WYNNE and BROWN, JJ., agree. Don Thompson, Deputy Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.