Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fulgham v. State
Citations: 766 So. 2d 186; 1999 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 206; 1999 WL 669313Docket: CR-98-0163
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; August 27, 1999; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Judge Fry dissents from the majority opinion regarding the sufficiency of fingerprint evidence to uphold Larry Lamar Fulgham's convictions for three counts of possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. He emphasizes that proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary for a conviction, requiring substantial evidence for all elements of the crime, as outlined in West v. State. The statute defines the crime as possessing or uttering a forged instrument with knowledge of its forgery and intent to defraud. Fry notes that evidence presented by the State included unauthorized fingerprints of Fulgham on forged checks linked to Jack D. Darby and Robert Montgomery, alongside the fact that Fulgham lived near them. However, he argues that no evidence placed Fulgham at the locations where the checks were used or established when he obtained the checks, failing to demonstrate his knowledge or intent as required by the law. He critiques the majority’s view that the fingerprint evidence alone justifies the jury's conviction, asserting it does not exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Fry underscores that convictions cannot stem from mere speculation or suspicion, as established in prior case law, reiterating that reasonable inferences must be based on solid evidence rather than guesswork. He concludes that the circumstantial evidence presented does not meet the legal standard for conviction and challenges the foundation of the jury's findings. In the case of Hale v. State and referenced legal precedents, the principle is established that deductions drawn from evidence must be logical and reasonable, distinguishing them from mere supposition or conjecture. Guesswork is insufficient to establish facts. A supposition is defined as a conjecture lacking proof of actual occurrence, and mere possibility does not constitute evidence, even circumstantially. In dissent, it is argued that the State's evidence only supports conjecture regarding Fulgham's possession of the instrument at the time of forgery, failing to prove beyond speculation that he had knowledge of the checks being forged or the intent to defraud.