Behrens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Behrens v. State

830 So. 2d 190, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15712, 2002 WL 31422289

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 2002

DocketNo. 4D00-4484

StatusPublished

This text of 830 So. 2d 190 (Behrens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Behrens v. State, 830 So. 2d 190, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15712, 2002 WL 31422289 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

Appellant was convicted of armed sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with battery, based on DNA evidence. He argues that the court erred in admitting the evidence because the state did not establish a chain of custody. We affirm.

The officer who took the DNA sample from appellant testified that he had collected two DNA swabs, one from the left side of appellant’s mouth and one from the right side. The evidence was attached to a property receipt containing appellant’s name. After the DNA was tested, the evidence was attached to a 3 x 5 index card on which the name was Ernest Beh-rens rather than Ernesto Behrens. This was the first ground of appellant’s objection.

The second ground involved confusion as to whether there were two or four swabs of DNA. The explanation for this discrepancy was that detectives sometimes refer to swab packets as one, not realizing there are two swab samples in one packet.

Appellant recognizes that this evidence is admissible unless a probability of tampering is established. State v. Taplis, 684 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We conclude that the discrepancies in the name and whether there were two or four swabs do not show that there was a probability of tampering. The trial court therefore properly admitted the evidence, leaving the weight accorded the evidence to be determined by the jury. Gavin v. Promo Brands USA, Inc., 578 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Nor did the court err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.

FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KLEIN, J.

Appellant was convicted of armed sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with battery, based on DNA evidence. He argues that the court erred in admitting the evidence because the state did not establish a chain of custody. We affirm.

The officer who took the DNA sample from appellant testified that he had collected two DNA swabs, one from the left side of appellant’s mouth and one from the right side. The evidence was attached to a property receipt containing appellant’s name. After the DNA was tested, the evidence was attached to a 3 x 5 index card on which the name was Ernest Beh-rens rather than Ernesto Behrens. This was the first ground of appellant’s objection.

The second ground involved confusion as to whether there were two or four swabs of DNA. The explanation for this discrepancy was that detectives sometimes refer to swab packets as one, not realizing there are two swab samples in one packet.

Appellant recognizes that this evidence is admissible unless a probability of tampering is established. State v. Taplis, 684 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We conclude that the discrepancies in the name and whether there were two or four swabs do not show that there was a probability of tampering. The trial court therefore properly admitted the evidence, leaving the weight accorded the evidence to be determined by the jury. Gavin v. Promo Brands USA, Inc., 578 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Nor did the court err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.

FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 So. 2d 190, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15712, 2002 WL 31422289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behrens-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack