 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Everett v. State11/24/2004
scuss our reasoning on that issue. First, however, we address appellant's four other claims.
A.
In his second claim, appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the State's DNA expert regarding population frequency. In Butler v. State, 842 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2003), this Court stated that DNA analysis is a two-step process. First a biochemical analysis determines that two samples are alike, and then statistics are employed to determine the frequency in the population of that profile. Id. at 827. Both require use of scientific methods that meet the Frye test for validity. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923). As to the first step, the expert testified, without objection, that appellant's DNA matched the DNA from the rape kit on each of the thirteen markers tested and that all other individuals tested were completely excluded as matches. Regarding the statistical analysis, a qualified expert must demonstrate a "sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources." 842 So. 2d at 828 (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157, 164 (Fla. 1997)). Here, the expert testified to seven years' experience in analytical chemistry, attendance at several courses and conferences on population genetics and statistics, and previous experience testifying as an expert in this area. Further, she employed the product rule in her analysis, and she testified that the National Research Council developed the standards and procedures for the analysis, which was accepted internationally as the methodology for such analysis. In addition, she used the FBI database used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for all such analysis. See Butler, 842 So. 2d at 828 (stating that Butler's claim of invalidity of product rule "is inaccurate in light of the case law that continues to uphold the validity of the product rule"). Finally, her testimony was specific to segments of the population (e.g., 1 in 15.1 quadrillion of the Caucasian population), and she testified that her results were reviewed twice under FDLE's procedures. Accordingly, the court did not err in finding the expert qualified to testify on population frequency because her testimony was based on established scientific principles in which she was trained and had experience.
B.
In his third claim, Everett challenges his sentence as unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. at 584, which requires that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, the jury must find the facts supporting the aggravating factors used to impose the death penalty. In this case, the jury unanimously recommended death, and one of the aggravating factors found was that the murder was committed during the course of a sexual battery or burglary, two crimes of which the jury also found Everett guilty. Accordingly, we reject his claim as we have rejected similar ones. See, e.g., Caballero v. State, 851 So. 2d 655, 663-64 (Fla. 2003) (denying relief under Ring where one aggravating factor was that the murder was committed during the commission of a burglary and kidnapping, charges on which defendant also was convicted, and the court determined that any one aggravator outweighed all the mitigation). We also have rejected the claim that the jury must unanimously specify each aggravator found. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So. 2d 182, 193 (Fla. 2003); Duest v. State, 855 So. 2d 33, 48-49 (Fla. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 2023 (2004).
C.
Appellant's fourth claim is that the jury instructions violated Caldwell v. Mississipi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 (1985), which held that it is "constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|