Opinion ID: 1601735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: use of term match in dna evidence

Text: Bolin next claims that the testimony about the DNA comparison of the semen sample from the victim's pants and Bolin's blood was improper because David Walsh, who analyzed the DNA in question, used the word match. We find no merit in this claim. First, the record reveals that no Frye [5] hearing was requested with respect to this DNA evidence. Thus, there was no challenge similar to that in Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268 (Fla.1997). This claim is only a challenge as to the use of the term match. The testimony of expert Walsh as well as the testimony of the two other DNA experts were subject to full cross-examination. In this record we do not find that the use of the term match was error, but even if it was error, such error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.