A Pembroke man was remanded yesterday after a jury unanimously convicted him of housebreaking.

Fingerprint evidence proved key in the Crown?s case against Toriano Elmario Dunkley, 33, after his prints were lifted off a tin can inside the house of Leon Simmons. The tin can belonged to Mr. Simmons? son, Anwar. Anwar kept spare change in the tin and told the jury during the trial it usually never left his room.

During his closing arguments yesterday morning, Crown counsel Anthony Blackman said there was no explanation for Dunkley?s fingerprints on the can other than him being physically present in the house on the day of the robbery ? October 10, 2002.

However, both Mr. Simmons and Anwar said during the trial they did not know the defendant, had never invited him to their house, and had never hired him to do any work at their house.

Though defence lawyer Mark Pettingill had insinuated there was some tampering with the fingerprint evidence, Mr. Blackman said the chances of the prints being contaminated were ?non-existent?.

?You should have no difficulty accepting that evidence as untarnished,? he told the jury ? adding if they accepted that evidence, they had to find Dunkley guilty. However, Mr. Pettingill responded in his closing by reminding jurors that if they had any doubts, they would have to acquit. ?If you have other questions that you can?t quite answer, that?s the doubt.?

Noting the investigating officer had agreed on the stand that the only evidence in the case was the fingerprints, Mr. Pettingill pointed out that Dunkley was charged with the crime on March 31, 2003 after Police acted on information received.

That meant he was charged more than a week before his fingerprints were taken for comparison with the ones found on the can on April 11, 2003. ?How could that be?? Mr. Pettingill asked. He also said the can was ?a movable item ... an item that comes and goes?, unlike the doorknob which Police also tested for prints.

?If you have a doubt about the veracity of the fingerprint, that?s enough,? he said.

Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons called the matter ?a short case with little by the way of conflicting evidence? in her 20-minute summation to the six-woman, six-man jury.

She cautioned the jury not to speculate on why Dunkley was charged with the crime before it was confirmed his fingerprints were on the tin can, though added Mr. Pettingill?s insinuations were a matter for them to decide on. The jury decided the case in one hour and 45 minutes. Dunkley will reappear for mention at the next arraignments session on August 2, where a date for his sentencing will be set.