evidence of identity as long as they have been used. The fact of the individuality of the corrugations of the skin on the fingers of the human hand is now so generally recognized that a fingerprint is in reality an unforgeable signature.” Avent v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 474, 478, 164 S.E.2d 655, 658 (1968) (alterations and internal citation marks omitted). It is true, as Winslow contends, that a mere fingerprint viewed in isolation, wholly independently of any contextual circumstances, often falls far short of proving guilt. But it is equally true that the circumstances tending to reasonably exclude the hypothesis that the print was impressed at a time other than that of the crime need not be circumstances completely independent of the fingerprint, and may properl .E.2d 357, 361 (1977) (<HOLDING>). It necessarily follows that the prosecution
holding record references in statement of facts of appellate brief were sufficient to raise no evidence point when coupled with argument holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference holding that coupled with the evidence of defendants fingerprint those other circumstances discussed in avent were sufficient to create a rational inference that the defendant was the criminal agent holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter holding that evidence of intoxication together with the circumstances of the accident were sufficient to demonstrate recklessness