Fingerprints alone cannot ground a conviction

It is a rare criminal case where the only evidence against an accused is fingerprint evidence. In such a case the rule that the only reasonable conclusion is the guilt of the accused applied (the case is circumstantial).

But fingerprints standing alone prove nothing more than the accused was in a location -- they must be linked by some other evidence to the crime.

Fingerprints standing alone are not sufficient to ground a conviction.

Today's decision in R. v. D.D.T., 2009 ONCA 918 makes this clear.

The Court holds:

The reasonableness of the inference that the appellant touched the windows in connection with the break-in depends, therefore, on whether it could reasonably be drawn from the evidence other than the fingerprints themselves.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

416 225 2777

www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com