In what circumstances will the Attorney General argue that there was insufficient evidence in the case of a defendant's palm print?

The Attorney General claims that in People v. Ang, 204 Cal.App.2d 553, 22 Cal.Rptr. 455, the evidence was no stronger than in the present case. This is perhaps not quite true, because in Ang the prosecution negatived the possibility that defendant's fingerprint was left at a time other than during the burglary.

It is also asserted that the case at bar is governed by People v. Atwood, 223 Cal.App.2d 316, 35 Cal.Rptr. 831, where the defendant's palm print was found in a burglarized garage. After his arrest Atwood denied [8 Cal.App.3d 791] ever having been in the premises and remained silent when informed that his palm print had been identified. At the trial he testified to two innocent visits to the garage during the week preceding the burglary, hoping that, if believed, they would explain the palm print. He denied the substance of the police testimony concerning his extrajudicial denial and his silence. The evidence was found to be sufficient. The court's discussion touches upon possible situations where fingerprint

Page 664