The length of time between when the crime occurred and when the shoeprint or tire track evidence was collected affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The expertise to make the comparisons involved a certain knowledge which was beyond the realm of that of the average juror.”).Įvidence of shoeprints or other tracks left at the crime scene that corresponds to those of the defendant may be admitted as relevant for the purpose of connecting the defendant with the crime – that is, to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.

Robbins was clearly in a superior position and better qualified to compare the bloody bare footprint found on the bridge with those of the defendants. 47 (1983) (noting that an SBI Agent was accepted as an expert witness and testified extensively concerning the unique characteristics of the tread on the shoes taken from the defendant and the shoe prints found at the scene of the crime) State v. The degree of certainty of identification for the analyst’s opinion may range from “not a match” to “the defendant could have made this impression” to “the defendant’s shoe or tire positively did make this impression.” Foundation and AdmissibilityĮxpert testimony about shoeprint, footprint, or tire track evidence has historically been admitted in North Carolina courts, after laying a proper foundation and establishing the witness’s qualifications. If the footprint, shoeprint, or tire track impression reveals details of minute cuts, gouges, and distinctive signs of wear and tear (sometimes called “randomly acquired characteristics”) that are consistent in location and degree with similar details found on defendant’s known sample, then the analyst may be able to make a more positive identification. The analyst’s degree of certainty will depend on the number and clarity of those impression details. When examining a shoeprint or tire track, the analyst must have enough information to determine the size and design of the shoe or tire tread in order to make an identification. If the impression submitted to the laboratory for comparison is made by the bare soles or toes of someone’s foot, the ridge detail of the barefoot impression can be examined for points of identification in the same way that fingerprint impressions are analyzed.

There are two main areas of comparison: Friction Ridge Details Shoeprints, footprints, and tire tracks are often inadvertently destroyed at the crime scene by bystanders or law enforcement officers investigating the crime who simply walk over the impressions left by the defendant – but if the impressions or prints are preserved and properly collected, a latent evidence analyst can use these impressions and compare them for a match to a known shoeprint, footprint, or tire connected to the defendant. If the two prints are found to be similar, that comparison may be introduced into evidence to support the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, because the evidence tends to connect the defendant with that crime. At every crime scene, the perpetrator has usually come and gone either by foot or by car, leaving behind various types of evidence.

Shoe impression evidence interview