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