DARRYL HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the failure to call a DNA expert witness whose testimony would be cumulative does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
The defendant's counsel did not call a DNA expert witness. The sexual assault nurse practitioner who examined the victim testified that she found no e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cumulative Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion, alleging that his counsel was ineffective for failing to depose and call as a witness the Bro-ward sheriffs DNA expert, was denied without a hearing. Appellant alleges that the expert would have testified as to the absence of his DNA on the victim or in any relevant area.
The state argues" that the decision not to call the DNA expert was a trial strategy decision. Normally, trial strategy decisions cannot be determined under the circumstances in this case without an evidentiary hearing. Evans v. State, 737 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(citing Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)).
Nor do we agree with the state that this can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing on the state’s theory that the DNA expert would have been cumulative to the testimony of the sexual assault nurse practitioner who examined the victim after the alleged sexual battery and found no semen or signs of genital trauma. There is a significant difference between what a nurse might observe with the naked eye and what DNA testing might reveal. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
WARNER, C.J., and KLEIN J., concur. SHAHOOD, J., dissents with opinion.
SHAHOOD, J.,
dissenting.
This case does not warrant an evidentiary hearing. I agree with appellee’s position that the DNA expert’s testimony would have been cumulative to that of the testimony of the sexual assault nurse practitioner who examined the victim after the incident.
I agree with the majority and recognize that there is a significant difference between what a nurse might observe with the naked eye and what DNA testing might reveal. The record in this case however, indicates that the sexual assault nurse practitioner performed a thorough examination of the person and clothing of the victim including taking eighteen swabs or specimens from the victim and her clothing. She then testified that there was no evidence of semen. I then accept appellant’s position that the DNA witness’ testimony would have also been negative as to the presence of semen.
Counsel’s failure to call the DNA witness and present cumulative testimony cannot be deemed to be ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby requiring an evidentiary hearing. See Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1997)(citing Card v. State, 497 So. 2d 1169, 1176-77 (Fla.1986)).
I would affirm the trial court’s order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 773 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…istance. Knowing that such an impairment existed but failing to present evidence to impeach the questionable identification cannot be justified as a strategic decision without an evidentiary hearing on Lopez’s 3.850 motion. See, e.g., Hall v. State, 754 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Soloman v. State, 741 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The summary denial of the 3.850 motion is vacated as to this issue only and we remand for an evidentiary hearing. We reject all of the other issues raised by Lopez and affi…
Authorities Cited
- Valle v. State, 705 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1997)
- Card v. State, 497 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1986)
- Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Evans v. State, 737 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)