Ervin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ervin v. State

83 So. 3d 954, 2012 WL 832785, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2012

DocketNo. 4D09-2163

StatusPublished

This text of 83 So. 3d 954 (Ervin 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

Ervin v. State, 83 So. 3d 954, 2012 WL 832785, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions for sexual battery with great harm or a deadly weapon by multiple perpetrators, robbery with a firearm, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery while armed. At trial, a forensic biologist testified that DNA in a condom recovered by police matched appellant’s DNA. She further testified, over appellant’s objection, that the statistical likelihood of someone else sharing the same DNA as appellant was one in “57 quadrillion, 210 trillion.” On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the expert’s statistical testimony where she did not prove her familiarity with the database used and the methodology behind the software. We find this issue is not preserved, as appellant objected at trial only on the grounds that the expert was not a statistician. An expert need not be a statistician to be qualified to testify as to the statistical significance of a DNA match. See Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 158 (Fla.2002). Further, even if the issue were preserved, the record reflects that the expert demonstrated “ ‘a sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources.’ ” Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817, 828 (Fla.2003) (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 164 (Fla.1997)). We find the other issues raised on appeal to be without merit.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions for sexual battery with great harm or a deadly weapon by multiple perpetrators, robbery with a firearm, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery while armed. At trial, a forensic biologist testified that DNA in a condom recovered by police matched appellant’s DNA. She further testified, over appellant’s objection, that the statistical likelihood of someone else sharing the same DNA as appellant was one in “57 quadrillion, 210 trillion.” On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the expert’s statistical testimony where she did not prove her familiarity with the database used and the methodology behind the software. We find this issue is not preserved, as appellant objected at trial only on the grounds that the expert was not a statistician. An expert need not be a statistician to be qualified to testify as to the statistical significance of a DNA match. See Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 158 (Fla.2002). Further, even if the issue were preserved, the record reflects that the expert demonstrated “ ‘a sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources.’ ” Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817, 828 (Fla.2003) (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 164 (Fla.1997)). We find the other issues raised on appeal to be without merit.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 3d 954, 2012 WL 832785, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ervin-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack