FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2425

_____________________________

BILLY GEAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

December 10, 2018

LEWIS, J.

Appellant, Billy Gear, appeals his convictions and sentences 

for first-degree murder and kidnapping. He contends that the trial 

court erred in admitting the dog tracking evidence and in denying 

his motion for judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge. We 

affirm as to the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal 

without discussion, and affirm as to the admission of the dog 

tracking evidence for the reasons that follow.

BACKGROUND

Appellant and the victim, Melissa Darnell, had custody 

disputes over their infant son. On December 29, 2015, Sergeant 

Bryan Hayden of the Taylor County Sheriff’s Office served 

Appellant with a court order to take custody of the infant—with 
2

whom Appellant had disappeared during a visit at Melissa’s 

home—and returned the child to Melissa. Hayden informed

Appellant, who was upset, that he could contest custody at the 

court hearing that was scheduled for the following week. After law 

enforcement reunited Melissa with the child, Appellant told his 

acquaintances that if he was not granted visitation at the 

upcoming custody hearing, he was going to kill Melissa. 

On January 6, 2016, at the custody hearing, the court granted 

Melissa custody. According to witness testimony and security 

footage, she and Appellant left the Taylor County Courthouse 

together around 2:30 p.m. Jimmy Jordan and his wife saw a man 

brutally pushing and shoving a woman by the shoulders towards

the woods behind the Wal-Mart in Perry and called 911 around 

2:49 p.m. Law enforcement officers responded to the 911 dispatch 

and waited outside the woods. Sergeant Jay Ricketson of the Perry 

Police Department saw Appellant exiting the woods behind WalMart in a hurried fashion. Appellant appeared nervous and 

sweaty, was breathing heavily, and had blood on him. During his 

initial encounter with police, Appellant claimed he had been 

running and playing in the woods with his male cousin, that the 

person he was seen pushing into the woods was the cousin, who

had long hair, and that Melissa had gone home following the 

custody hearing. Shortly thereafter, the police found blood and 

drag marks in the woods and then discovered Melissa’s remains 

covered with debris and surrounded by court documents. 

Appellant’s cousin denied seeing Appellant during the day in 

question. As the police uncovered further evidence refuting

Appellant’s version of events, his account continued to change. He 

eventually admitted to the police that he covered up Melissa’s 

body, but claimed her death was an accident—a contention that 

was later repudiated by the medical examiner’s findings, as well 

as by Appellant’s confession to a jail mate. The medical examiner 

observed injuries on Melissa consistent with having been dragged 

and determined that her cause of death was non-accidental 

crushing neck trauma with another significant attributing 

condition of a fractured jaw. While in the Taylor County Jail, 

Appellant told his cellmate that due to custody issues, he assaulted 

Melissa in the Wal-Mart parking lot, took her to a path in the 

woods, and beat her to death by crushing her neck and dislocating 
3

her jaw. Appellant also told the police that he had been in those 

woods months prior.

On January 8, 2016, the police contacted Kelly Walker with 

the First Response Search Team about helping them find missing 

clothing. Walker testified that she is retired from the sheriff’s 

office, where she worked for thirty-two years; she described her 

experience as a K-9 handler, in which capacity she has been 

working since 1992; and she explained that the First Response 

Search Team, of which she is the president, is a nonprofit 

organization that assists law enforcement and trains its dogs to 

work much older trails than the patrol units. Walker conducted a 

track of the scene with her K-9 about forty-four to forty-eight hours 

after Jordan’s 911 call. 

Walker testified that she performed the track with her 

trailing dog Bella, who is a bloodhound and scent specific, meaning 

she follows the scent she is presented with. Walker described 

Bella’s training, which began at the age of four months and 

continued through her retirement at the age of ten years, and 

believed the track in this case was her last one. Bella’s retirement 

had to do only with her age and the availability of a replacement 

canine and not with any decrease in her ability to track. Bella did 

a couple of hundred trails and proved reliable at scent trailing—

she was successful “most all of the time.” At the time of the track 

at issue, Bella held a National Association of Search and Rescue 

certificate and was proficient in tracking scents that were thirtysix to forty-eight hours old. Although Bella had the capacity to 

track thirty-day-old scents, she was only trained to track scents up 

to fifty-eight hours old. Bella had in the past successfully done 

tracks where she recreated someone’s steps and had also 

successfully tracked an over three-day-old missing person’s trail 

for well over a mile and led Walker to a trailer home where it was 

confirmed the person had been. 

In this case, Bella was presented with Appellant’s cap in a 

vacant lot by the Wal-Mart entrance and she began tracking from 

where Jordan saw the man pushing the woman into the woods, to 

the area where Melissa’s remains were found, and then to the area 

where Appellant was apprehended by police upon exiting the 

woods. Walker had not been told about the geography and 
4

significant locations related to the case. Bella never lost 

Appellant’s scent, which she continuously tracked, allowing 

Walker’s team to locate several items of evidence. 

The evidence of Bella’s tracking was admitted over the 

defense’s objection. Appellant argued that the State was using the 

evidence improperly to recreate a track and that the evidence was 

unreliable, but the trial court found it met the indicia of reliability. 

Following the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty as charged, 

the trial court adjudicated him guilty on both counts and sentenced 

him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment. This appeal 

followed.

ANALYSIS

We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359, 

373 (Fla. 2014). Dog tracking evidence is admissible if a proper 

foundation is laid. McCray v. State, 915 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2005) (citing in part Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 

1994)). The foundation requirement pertains to establishing the 

reliability of the dog, which may be accomplished by introducing 

evidence of the dog’s breed, training, past performance, and other 

indicia of reliability. Id.; see also Toler v. State, 457 So. 2d 1115, 

1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (explaining same). 

In Toler, we held that the trial court did not err by admitting 

the dog tracking evidence because “Lieutenant Miller’s testimony 

that Bloodhound Andy had successfully tracked humans on seven 

prior occasions and his testimony that Andy had been extensively 

trained to track humans provided a sufficient foundation.” 457 So. 

2d at 1117. In that case, the appellant was tried and convicted for 

burglary of a dwelling and the dog, with whom Lieutenant Miller 

had worked on seventeen occasions, traced “a scent” from the ditch 

where the stolen property was found to the area near the victim’s 

trailer where footprints with a unique grid-like design and tire 

tracks from a vehicle with at least three different kinds of tires

that could have been left by the appellant’s boots and truck were 

found. Id. at 1116-17.

Similarly, in Green v. State, the supreme court rejected the 

appellant’s argument that the trial court should have excluded 
5

evidence of a dog’s scent tracking because “the character and 

dependability of the dog were established, the officer who handled 

the dog was trained, and the evidence was relevant”; “[i]n addition, 

there were indicia of reliability: the tracking occurred within hours 

of the crime and the area had been secured shortly after the crime 

occurred, . . . and there was a continuous track to the home of 

Green’s sister.” 641 So. 2d 391, 393-94 (Fla. 1994) (noting that the 

trial court found that “although the scent tracking was the only 

evidence that established Green’s identity, corroboration included 

. . . Green’s presence at his sister’s house earlier that day”).

More recently, in McCray, the Third District concluded that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the dog 

tracking evidence because there was ample evidence to establish

its reliability where the dog’s handler testified that he has trained 

dogs to track for more than thirty-five years and worked with this 

particular dog for four years; the handler explained that the dog’s 

training included weekly tracking practice and that in the past two 

years they did twenty tracks, some of which resulted in 

apprehensions; and, in the case, the crime scene area was secured 

within minutes, the tracking started within five minutes of the 

crime and the defendant’s flight, the tracking began where the 

defendant was last seen, the dog picked up the track immediately, 

the track was continuous, and the dog located the defendant in his 

hiding place near the crime scene. 915 So. 2d at 240-42.

Turning to the case before us, Appellant maintains that the 

trial court erred by admitting the dog tracking evidence because it 

was unreliable. We disagree. The dog’s reliability was established 

for a proper foundation through Walker’s testimony that Bella is a 

bloodhound, she started training at the age of four months and 

continued training until her retirement at the age of ten years, she 

had done hundreds of tracks and proved reliable, she was 

successful at trailing “most all of the time,” the track at issue was 

within her proficiency, and she was trained to track scents up to 

fifty-eight hours old. Moreover, additional indicia of reliability

were present in this case given that the crime scene was secured, 

Bella’s handler was not told of the geography or significant 

locations, and Bella tracked Appellant’s scent continuously, 

without hesitation. 
6

Appellant emphasizes that the tracking took place in an area 

where he had previously been in suggesting that the dog picked up 

an old scent. However, the only evidence about when Appellant 

had last been in the woods was a detective’s testimony that 

Appellant stated during a police interview that he had been in the 

woods months prior to the crime. Walker testified that although 

Bella was capable of tracking thirty-day-old scents, she was 

trained to track scents only up to fifty-eight hours old. In addition 

to Bella having neither the training nor the capability to track a 

scent that is months old, the testimony was that Bella’s track was 

continuous and connected the significant areas of the crime scene, 

indicating that she was following Appellant’s scent from the time 

of the crime. 

Appellant further argues that the dog tracking evidence in 

this case was used in an improper and unprecedented manner 

because the dog essentially recreated his alleged path instead of 

tracking with the goal of finding a suspect, corpse, or specific item 

at the end of the trail. However, that is a distinction without a 

difference. In either scenario, the dog is tracking the scent a 

person had left behind and is, thus, recreating/following that 

person’s path, and even when tracking to find a suspect or missing 

person, there is no guarantee that the person will be at the end of 

the trail. While finding the target at the end of the trail provides 

additional indicia of reliability, equivalent indicia of reliability is 

present here because upon being presented with Appellant’s scent, 

Bella started tracking from the place where Jordan saw a man 

forcefully pushing a woman into the woods, to the victim’s body in 

the woods (where Appellant eventually admitted to having been at 

the time of the crime), and then to the back of the Wal-Mart where 

Appellant was apprehended by the police. Bella’s tracking was 

continuous and she even located missing pieces of evidence along 

the way. We further note that Walker testified that Bella had 

successfully tracked people’s paths in the past where the person 

was not found at the end of the trail and gave an example of a 

three-day-old missing person’s trail. 

Moreover, the dog tracking evidence admitted in this case is 

not unique. In fact, we are bound by Toler, where we upheld the 

admissibility of dog tracking evidence even though a person was 

not located at the end of the trail; indeed, even less indicia of 
7

reliability was present there because the dog was not presented 

with the appellant’s scent, but was used to track “a scent.” 

Likewise, in Green, the supreme court upheld the admissibly of dog 

tracking evidence where the dog tracked to a place where the 

appellant was known to have been earlier in the day, not where he 

was actually found at the end of the trail. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting the dog tracking evidence and affirm 

Appellant’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.

RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Benjamin L. Hoffman and 

Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee,

for Appellee.