At the scene of a burglary, a latent palmprint was found and developed at the edge of the broken window. The developed latent was lifted, collected, and later identified. However, the suspect claimed to have visited the business as a prior customer, thereby offering reasonable doubt in explaining the presence of the latent print. It would be helpful in this type of incident to be able to determine whether the latent print was left before or after the glass was broken. In this article, specific features of print are noted that would assist in establishing whether the print was placed on the surface of the glass before or after the breakage. Several experiments were conducted supporting the determination of the print deposition and glass breakage sequence. The probative value of the evidence, when documented, is considerable and allows for the argument that the latent evidence in this incident, and similar ones, was left after the glass was broken and not before, especially if the latent evidence overlaps from the glass surface onto that of the actual fractured edge. Figures