Opinion ID: 1852379
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Rebut the During the Commission of a Sexual Battery Aggravator

Text: In this claim, Waterhouse alleges that defense counsel was ineffective in that he failed to rebut the during the commission of a sexual battery aggravator. Because we conclude that this claim is conclusively refuted by the record, we affirm the trial court's summary denial of this subclaim. Specifically, on direct appeal, this Court noted: Waterhouse was not precluded from challenging the State's evidence that a sexual battery occurred or from presenting evidence that a sexual battery did not occur. Our review of the record indicates that the court afforded Waterhouse and his counsel considerable leeway in cross-examining State witnesses on the evidence of sexual battery. Waterhouse, 596 So.2d at 1015. Defense counsel fully utilized the trial court's considerable leeway, and extensively cross-examined the forensic pathologist who testified during the proceedings. Particularly, defense counsel questioned the doctor and established that although an enzyme which indicates the presence of semen was found inside the victim's rectum, no sperm cells were actually discovered. This was relevant because, as the pathologist testified, semen is the carrier of sperm cells. Defense counsel also cross-examined the forensic pathologist regarding the origin of the enzyme that was found in the victim's rectum; the possibility that the salt water in which the victim's body had been emerged might have skewed the results relating to the enzymes that were found; and that a chemical found inside the victim's rectum which is associated with a person whose blood type is B may exclude the defendant as the secretor of the fluids found there. Moreover, defense counsel cross-examined the forensic serologist who examined a Coca-Cola bottlewhich the State theorized was inserted into the victim's rectumfound inside the defendant's vehicle. Through cross-examination, defense counsel established that although the insertion of a Coca-Cola bottle into the victim's rectum would have caused serious bleeding, the bottle found in defendant's car did not have any traces of blood. Because we conclude that this claim is conclusively refuted by the record below, we affirm the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing as to this claim.