People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919 involved two murders. The first victim was killed by a person who entered the mobile home in the early morning hours through a kitchen window. Certain property, including an automobile, was missing from the premises. The shoeprints found in the flowerbed under the kitchen window of the mobilehome bore a strong indication that they had been made by shoes owned and shared by defendant and his brother. A fingerprint found on a screen that had been removed from the kitchen window was identified as that of defendant, as was a partial palm print on the edge of the kitchen counter. ( Bean, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 930.) The defendant testified, offering an alibi for the time of the murder. He also testified that he had been at the mobile park on the day before the murder, and that he had pried open the screen over the kitchen window of the mobilehome and leaned inside to see if there were items that he could steal. ( Id. at p. 931.) The high court found there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the first murder. Although the defendant offered an explanation for his fingerprint on the window screen and palm print on the sink counter of the mobilehome, the jury was free to disbelieve him. The court found that the print evidence, coupled with his admission that he had nearly collided with a highway patrol car while driving the victim's car, the shoe print, and the proximity of the mobilehome part to the homes of relatives with whom defendant often stayed, all point to the defendant as the perpetrator of the first murder. ( Bean, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 933.) The second victim in Bean died as a result of heart failure after being beaten while carrying groceries from her car into her home. The victim's purse and automobile were missing when the body was found. A pair of brown, plastic-framed sunglasses was found on the floor a few inches from the victim's left hand. ( Bean, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 931.) The defendant admitted owning a similar pair of sunglasses. ( Id. at p. 933.) While less evidence linked the defendant to the second murder, the court found sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty. There was evidence that the defendant had been seen, possibly observing the house, in the past; that he was living nearby with his sister; and that he was familiar with the location at which the victim's automobile, purse, and wallet were found.