## Facts

- An appliance store in Wilmington, Delaware was burglarized on July 4, 1991; a plexiglass front door was broken and several electronics were stolen.
- Police identified the broken door as the point of entry and found a steel pipe nearby, believed to have been used to break the door.
- Officers recovered latent fingerprints from pieces of shattered plexiglass near the door; the pipe yielded no usable prints.
- Some recovered prints matched Bobby L. Monroe; other identifiable and unidentifiable prints did not.
- A search of Monroe’s home found no stolen goods and no other incriminating evidence; Monroe denied involvement and asserted an alibi.
- At trial, the State’s evidence connecting Monroe to the crimes consisted solely of the latent fingerprints on the plexiglass shards; officers could not establish the shards’ precise origin or when the prints were made.
- Monroe was convicted in Superior Court of third-degree burglary and felony theft and did not move for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case.

## Issues

1. Whether latent fingerprints on shattered plexiglass from an exterior commercial door, without corroborating evidence, were sufficient to prove burglary and felony theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether failure to move for judgment of acquittal barred appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency, and if not, whether the trial court’s failure to enter acquittal sua sponte was plain error.
3. If the evidence was insufficient, whether double jeopardy required entry of a judgment of acquittal and prohibited retrial.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the convictions.
- The court held the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was legally insufficient to support the burglary and theft convictions.
- The court held the trial court committed reversible plain error by failing to enter a judgment of acquittal sua sponte, despite the absence of a defense motion.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgments of acquittal on all charges because double jeopardy barred retrial after reversal for evidentiary insufficiency.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is insufficient if, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Fingerprint evidence alone supports conviction only when the circumstances permit a reasonable inference that the prints were impressed during the commission of the crime and not at an earlier, innocent time.
- Appellate courts may review unpreserved sufficiency claims for plain error where the lack of proof is so clear that allowing the conviction to stand would be a manifest injustice.
- Reversal for evidentiary insufficiency requires entry of a judgment of acquittal; double jeopardy prohibits retrial.

## Conclusion

Because the State offered only latent fingerprints on plexiglass fragments without proof connecting their placement to the time or manner of the break-in, the evidence could not sustain burglary and felony theft convictions; the trial court’s failure to acquit was plain error, and double jeopardy required acquittal rather than a new trial.


Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560 (Del. 1995)