Opinion ID: 1631295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gore's Request to Conduct DNA Testing on Items Collected During the Investigation of This Case

Text: Gore seeks to have DNA testing conducted on items collected during the investigation of this case, asserting that the items were collected from either the vicinity of the victim's body or from the victim's vehicle, and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion as facially insufficient. The clear requirement of the provisions of section 3.853 is that a movant, in pleading the requirements of rule 3.853, must lay out with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a lesser sentence. In order for the trial court to make the required findings, the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case. Hitchcock v. State, 866 So.2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004). This Court has previously explained that [i]t is the defendant's burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant's sentence. Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 820 (Fla.2006) (emphasis added) (quoting Robinson v. State, 865 So.2d 1259, 1265 (Fla.2004)). The burden is on the movant to `demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.' Van Poyck v. State, 908 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla.2005) (quoting Hitchcock, 866 So.2d at 27). This Court has rejected claims where the defendant was merely speculating and has repeatedly cautioned that `[r]ule 3.853 is not intended to be a fishing expedition.' Lott, 931 So.2d at 820-21 (quoting Cole v. State, 895 So.2d 398, 403 (Fla.2004)). Gore has not met his burden and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of DNA testing on the items collected during the investigation of this case. Gore seeks DNA testing of the following items: (1) earrings found near the victim; (2) a shoe string found on the victim's wrists; (3) socks; (4) a pink shirt; (5) white bikini panties; (6) a panty shield found in two pieces; (7) an earring taken from the victim's vehicle; (8) a multicolored pillow taken from the victim's vehicle; (9) a grey shirt found in a brown box; (10) multi-colored shorts found in a brown box; (11) a blood sample taken from the map light of the victim's vehicle; (12) Fruit of the Loom underwear and one pair of socks; (13) a curling iron and hair brush belonging to the victim; (14) debris from the underwear and socks; (15) debris from the panties and panty shield; (16) contact lenses found near the body of the victim; (17) an empty Marlboro brand cigarette package; (18) three empty beer bottles; (19) fingernails collected near the victim's body; and (20) strands of hair found in the victim's right hand. Although Gore was specific as to the list of the items that he requests be tested, a closer examination shows that DNA testing of the items would not exonerate him of the murder. Some of the items were found at the crime scene, but not in close proximity to the body, which was located in a wooded area used as an unauthorized dumping ground for household garbage and refuse. This area was near a road that, according to trial testimony, was strewn with household refuse from beginning to end. For example, Gore requests DNA testing on a Marlboro brand cigarette package, which was found approximately fifty yards from the body. He also requests DNA testing on Fruit of the Loom underwear, a pair of socks, and debris from the underwear and socks these items were located near the entrance to the road, over one hundred yards away from the body. From a review of the trial record, other items that Gore requests be tested appear to have been located in closer proximity to the body. These items include earrings that were found underneath the victim's head, socks, a pink shirt, panties, contact lenses, empty beer bottles, fingernails, a panty shield found in two pieces, and debris collected from the panties and panty shield. However, Gore has not carried his burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant's sentence. Lott, 931 So.2d at 820 (emphasis added) (quoting Robinson, 865 So.2d at 1265). Further, this area was used as an unauthorized dumping ground for household garbage and refuse and, because the body was not found until weeks or months after the murder, the chance of contamination is increased. Another category of items at the crime scenestrands of hair found in the victim's right hand and a shoe string found knotted around the victim's left wrist could likely have been related to the murder but were never used to inculpate Gore and Gore has not shown how the DNA testing of these items could be used to exonerate him of the murder. Gore also seeks to have DNA testing performed on items found in the victim's vehicle. These items are earrings, a multicolored pillow, a shirt, shorts, and a blood sample from the map light of the vehicle. The shirt had blood on the left sleeve that was consistent with Gore's blood type and enzyme typea type that was found in approximately sixteen percent of the population. The shorts and map light tested positive for presumptive presence of blood, but the analyst testifying at trial was not able to determine more than that. Finally, two of the items in Gore's list are completely unconnected to the crime scene or the victim's vehiclea curling iron and hair brush belonging to the victim. These items were provided to the investigators in this case by Tennessee police to be used as a standard sample of the victim's hair for comparison purposes. [3] It is not clear whether Gore is requesting DNA testing on these items in order to provide a comparison sample of the victim's DNA or whether Gore believes that these items were located at the crime scene or in the victim's vehicle. Gore asserts that because the State collected all of the above items at the time of the murder investigation, they must have some relevance to the murder. However, none of the items were ever used by the State to inculpate Gore, with the exception of the shirt found in the victim's vehicle that had blood matching Gore's blood type and enzyme type. Importantly, there is absolutely no indication that any of the items could be used to exonerate Gore. Gore asserts that the testing of the items will serve to establish that someone other than Gore committed the murder by either establishing the true identity of the actual killer or exclude Gore as the perpetrator of the murder. Even if the DNA analysis indicates a source other than the victim or Gore, there is no reasonable probability that [he] would have been acquitted or received a life sentence, Tompkins v. State, 872 So.2d 230, 243 (Fla.2003), as the DNA very likely could have come from someone other than the murderer given the location of the items in either a trash dump or in the victim's vehicle. See Lott, 931 So.2d at 820-21. Gore asserted in his motion filed with the trial court that DNA testing will allow the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to compare those profiles to the profiles of known perverts. This is exactly the sort of speculation and fishing expedition for which rule 3.853 was not intended. See Lott, 931 So.2d at 820-21. Further, the absence of Gore's DNA on the listed items collected from the crime scene or the victim's vehicle would not exonerate him or mitigate his sentence because such results would not prove that [he] was neither the perpetrator nor present at the crime scene. Overton v. State, 976 So.2d 536, 570 (Fla.2007). Moreover, the evidence presented at trial clearly connected Gore to the murder. He was the person last seen with the victim by any credible witness testifying at trial. Gore, 599 So.2d at 980, 984. Within twenty-four hours of the victim's disappearance, Gore was seen in Florida in possession of her vehicle. See id. He received a traffic ticket while driving the victim's vehicle in Florida, and his fingerprints were found in the victim's vehicle, which was abandoned after an accident. Id. He also had someone pawn the victim's jewelry. Id. Finally, he admitted to Lisa Ingram that a purse in the victim's vehicle belonged to a girl he had killed last night or a few nights ago. Id. at 983. In sum, Gore has not carried his burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate him or mitigate his sentence in this case. See Lott, 931 So.2d at 820 (quoting Robinson, 865 So.2d at 1265). Under the facts of this case, we conclude that he cannot carry this burden with respect to these items.