With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the state’s fingerprint expert was unable to determine how long the fingerprints had been in place. Id. at 28-29. This Court held that the evidence, standing alone, was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove the getaway car. We reasoned that “the long and the short of it is that Gregoire may have innocently left his prints there either before or after the robbery.” Id. at 28. The instant case differs from Moran in several material respects. First, unlike the robbery charge in Moran, the crimes with which defendant has been charged were not time-specific. The prosecution in this case was not required to show that defendant left his fingerprints on the objects at a particular date and time. Cf. Mikes v. Borg, 947 F.2d 353, 356-57, 360 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, in contrast, the possession of the

A: holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission
B: holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime
C: holding undisclosed statement that someone other than the defendant possessed the murder weapon three weeks after the murder was not material exculpatory evidence in light of this overwhelming evidence that buehl had the murder weapon at the time of the killings and that he was the murderer
D: holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene
B.