State v. Palmer (1949)

A careful reading of McDonnell , the cases the McDonnell Court cited for that statement, and other cases using similar language reveals a concern not over the mere lack of some unique characteristic in the print, but rather the failure of the prosecutor to establish a reasonable connection between the print and the shoe. 1 In State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205 , 52 S.E.2d 908, 913 (1949), the Court observed that: “In the nature of things, evidence of shoeprints has no legitimate …

Defendant attacks this evidence on grounds that it does not meet the three-part test for the sufficiency of such circumstantial evidence set forth in State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 213 , 52 S.E. 2d 908, 913 (1949), and clarified in State v. Jackson, 302 N.C. 101 , 273 S.E. 2d 666 (1981).

While the State’s evidence in this case may “beget suspicion in imaginative minds,” State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 214 , 52 S.E. 2d 908, 914 (1949), this is not enough to support a conviction for possession of stolen property.

Id. at 213-14 , 52 S.E. 2d at 913 (citations omitted).

However, “[e]vidence of motive is relevant as a circumstance to identify an accused as the perpetrator of an offense.” State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 213 , 52 S.E. 2d 908, 913 (1949).

See, e.g., State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205 , 52 S.E. 2d 908 (1950); State v. O’Neal, 187 N.C. 22 , 120 S.E. 817 (1924); Brandis, North Carolina Evidence § 83 (2d rev. ed. 1982).

Testimony not based on such data of appreciable significance should be given no weight. [Fn. omitted.]" (Wigmore, supra, p. 394; see State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205 [ 52 S.E.2d 908, 914 ]; compare State v. Pinyatello, 272 N.C. 312 [ 158 S.E.2d 596, 605-606 ].) There is a sound policy for requiring foundational evidence that the footprint matches defendant's shoes.

See also State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 213 , 52 S.E.2d 908, 913 (1949).

See, e.g., State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205 , 52 S.E.2d 908 (1949).