Tommie Lee ANDREWS, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.533 So.
2d 841 (1988) October 20, 1988,
Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1988Judge: OrfingerCRIME INVOLVED: Aggravated battery, Sexual battery and Armed burglary of a dwelling FACTS: During the early hours of the morning, the victim was awakened when someonejumped on top of her and felt a sharp object against her neck. The intruder (Andrews) held hishand over her mouth, told her to keep quiet and threatened to kill her if she saw his face. Thevictim struggled, but to no avail. The intruder then proceeded to rape the victim, then stole herpurse containing $40, and left the house. After the attack, the victim submitted herself to aphysical examination and found the presence of semen in the victim’s vagina through a swabsample. Through an analysis of the swab sample, the analyst was able to pinpoint thepopulation group to where the assailant belonged to. During further investigation in the victim’shouse, they also found fingerprints matching the right index and middle finger of the assailant.During the trial, the court admitted the evidence, and the jury convicted Andrews of aggravatedbattery, sexual battery and armed burglary of a dwelling. The assailant, now appellant, however,questions the methods used by Lifecodes Corp. for processing the DNA samples, as well as theadmissibility of the same. Andrews also contends that his motion for mistrial should have beengranted because of an improper comment by the prosecutor, and that he could not be convictedfor both aggravated battery and sexual battery arising from the same incident.ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples are admissible as evidence for purposes of conviction.RULING: YES. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the test results admissible inthis case. In contrast to evidence derived from hypnosis, truth serum and polygraph, evidencederived from DNA print identification appears based on proven scientific principles. Indeed, there was testimony that such evidence has been used to exonerate those suspected ofcriminal activity. Given the evidence in this case that the test was administered in conformitywith accepted scientific procedures so as to ensure to the greatest degree possible a reliableresult, appellant has failed to show error on this point. The frequency by which given DNAbands appear in the population is calculated by using an established statistical data base,employing a statistical formula known as the Hardy-Weinberg equilibria. This principle is usedfor determining other genetic characteristics such as blood type or Rh factors, dates back to the1920's and has been generally accepted in the scientific community as being accurate for thiscalculation. Appellant contends that the data base of 710 samples is too small to be statisticallysignificant. The only evidence in the case supports the statistical value of the randomly selectedsamples. The testimony reveals that as the data base expands, the probability numbers do notchange statistically, and that The American Association of Blood Banks, in its book entitledProbability of Inclusion in Paternity Testing (1982) concludes that a data base of two to fivehundred samples was found to provide adequate statistical results. Admittedly, the scientificevidence here, unlike that presented with fingerprint, footprint or bite mark evidence, is highlytechnical, incapable of observation and requires the jury to either accept or reject the scientist'sconclusion that it can be done. While this factor requires courts to proceed with special caution,cf. United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1985) (expert testimony as to footprint evidence,unlike other scientific evidence is susceptible to examination by jury which factor limitedpotential prejudice), it does not of itself render the evidence unreliable