Opinion ID: 2494563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Failing to request Frye hearing sua sponte

Text: This Court has repeatedly held that absent a proper objection from the offended party, it is not an error for a trial court to admit evidence without a Frye hearing. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 506 (Fla.1999) (McDonald argues the trial court failed to determine the admissibility of the DNA test results and the basis of the statistical comparisons according to the standards enunciated in Frye .... Moreover, in the absence of a proper objection, we find no error in the admission of this evidence.) (citing Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573, 580 (Fla.1997)); Hadden, 690 So.2d at 580 (Unless the party against whom the evidence is being offered makes this specific objection, the trial court will not have committed error in admitting the evidence.) (citing Archer v. State, 673 So.2d 17, 21 (Fla.1996)). Accordingly, as a matter of law, the trial court here did not err in failing to conduct a Frye hearing sua sponte. Taylor's reliance on Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1201 (Fla.2005), is misguided. Nothing in Zack supports Taylor's contention that the trial court should have ordered a Frye hearing sua sponte. In fact, the trial court explicitly rejected Zack's contention that the the trial court should have conducted a hearing sua sponte. Id. Further, Zack is distinguishable because the trial, in that case, occurred in 1997, two years after this Court took judicial notice of the reliability of DNA evidence in Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla.1995). The trial court did not err in failing to order a Frye hearing sua sponte. Accordingly, appellate counsel cannot be said to be ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. We therefore deny relief on this claim.