DANNY CONLEY, 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.
Danny Conley appeals his adjudication as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the trial court's exclusion of penile plethysmograph (PPG) test evidence. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court erred in excluding PPG evidence that should have been admitted under binding precedent, and remands for reconsideration under Florida's newly adopted Daubert standard for scientific evidence.
The trial court erred in excluding PPG evidence in disregard of binding precedent from State v. Fullwood that PPG evidence is admissible in Jimmy Ryce Act proceedings. Because Florida adopted the Daubert standard for scientific evidence during the pendency of the appeal, the case is reversed and remanded for determination of PPG evidence admissibility under the newly codified Daubert standard in Florida Statutes section 90.702.
[1] A district court's decision binds all Florida trial courts in the absence of interdistrict conflict.
[2] Florida trial courts must apply the Daubert standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence, as codified by section 90.702, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Fullwood was binding on the trial court in the absence of any contrary authority.”
Establishes that the trial court was bound by the Third District's Fullwood decision permitting PPG evidence in Jimmy Ryce Act cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConley was adjudicated as a sexually violent predator in a proceeding under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The trial court excluded penile plethysmograph test ev…
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 Admissibility Of Scientific Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from a final order of adjudication and commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, appellant seeks reversal of the final order on several grounds. We agree the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a penile plethysmograph (PPG) test in disregard of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Fullwood, 22 So.3d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), which affirmed the admission of PPG evidence in a Jimmy Ryce Act proceeding after the trial *1121court found PPG evidence was not new or novel evidence subject to analysis under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). Fullwood was binding on the trial court in the absence of any contrary authority. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992) (observing that “in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts”).
However, while this appeal was pending, Florida adopted the federal standard governing the admissibility of scientific evidence first announced by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), which replaced the Frye standard. Ch. 2013-107, at 1461-63, Laws of Fla. Specifically, consistent with Daubert, section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2013), was amended to provide:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:
(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial after the trial court has determined the admissibility of the PPG evidence under the Daubert standard codified by section 90.702. In light of this disposition, we do not reach appellant’s remaining claims on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osmany Anthony Perez v. Bell S. Telecomms., Inc., 138 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…to be applied to pending cases.”). Although the revisions to section 90.702 came into force after the filing of this appeal, we apply them retrospectively to the facts of this case. We are not the first district court to do so. See Conley v. State, 129 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).12 Under Daubert, “the subject of an expert’s testimony must be ‘scientific knowledge.’” 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786. “[I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the s…
Authorities Cited
- Daubert et ux. v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Fullwood, 22 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)