When someone is charged with a crime, two questions often shape the case in ways that surprise people who have never been through the process. First, can the state treat a single encounter as several separate crimes? Second, how reliable does forensic evidence like DNA have to be before a jury is allowed to hear about it?
These questions matter to anyone trying to understand how criminal trials work. The answers affect how many charges a person faces, how long a potential sentence could be, and what kind of scientific testimony can be presented in court.
A Florida appeals court recently addressed both issues in the same case. The decision explains when repeated physical acts count as distinct offenses and when concerns about forensic methods go to the weight of the evidence rather than whether a jury may consider it at all.
This post looks at Figueroa Hernandez v. State, a decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaway
Courts may treat separate physical acts as distinct crimes even when they happen in quick succession, and disputes about how forensic DNA testing was performed usually affect how much weight a jury gives the evidence rather than whether the jury hears it.
The questions are more specific:
- When does one act end and another begin for double jeopardy purposes?
- When does a challenge to DNA methods keep evidence out versus simply invite cross-examination?
What happened in this case?
According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with six counts involving sexual activity with a minor. After a six-day trial, a jury convicted him on all counts, and the trial court sentenced him to prison followed by probation and found him to be a sexual predator.
The case involved a twelve-year-old victim. The opinion states that the victim’s account remained consistent across her statements to her mother, a police officer, a nurse practitioner, a child protection team interviewer, and her trial testimony.
A nurse practitioner examined the victim and collected swabs, and a supervising physician later summarized that report for the jury because the nurse had left her position and moved away. A crime lab analyst then tested the DNA swabs.
Why was the DNA evidence disputed?
The defense argued that the crime lab’s testing methods were outdated. According to the opinion, the defense expert contended that newer genotyping software would have been better suited for mixed and low-grade DNA samples, and that the lab’s manual method relied too heavily on the analyst’s interpretation.
The state’s analyst testified that her methods followed the lab’s standard procedures, were still used in laboratories around the country, were generally accepted in the scientific community, and that her work had passed a technical peer review. She also testified about how she handled samples that fell below a certain measurement threshold.
The trial court held a hearing under the standard from Daubert and section 90.702 of the Florida Statutes, which governs when expert testimony may be admitted.
Weight versus admissibility
The court explained that the test is not whether the expert’s conclusions are correct, but whether the methodology is sound. Concerns about the probative value of DNA evidence generally go to how much weight a jury should give it, not whether it comes in.
How did the court rule on the DNA evidence?
The appeals court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the DNA evidence. It reasoned that the defense’s criticisms were proper subjects for cross-examination but did not make the analyst’s testimony inadmissible.
The court noted that the analyst identified the defendant’s DNA from a sample mixture, that this identification was not repudiated by the defense case, and that the state met the reliability criteria used to evaluate scientific evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in allowing the state to describe a preliminary serology test as a “presumptive saliva test.”
Why weren’t the multiple counts double jeopardy?
The defendant argued that several of the charges punished him more than once for the same offense. He raised this through a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, a procedure for challenging a conviction after trial.
The court disagreed, holding that each charged offense was a distinct criminal act. The state had charged separate counts of lewd and lascivious molestation for touching different parts of the victim’s body. Relying on Florida Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that a new act begins each time one touch ends and another starts, no matter how closely they follow one another.
Because the acts resulted from separate impulses, the court concluded there was no double jeopardy violation and affirmed the denial of the postconviction motion.
What does this decision mean for readers?
The opinion illustrates two recurring principles in criminal cases. Distinct physical acts can support separate charges even within a single episode, which can affect the number of counts a person faces. And disagreements among forensic experts about methodology often become a matter for the jury to weigh after cross-examination, rather than a reason to exclude the evidence.
The court also declined to decide certain constitutional arguments about a recent United States Supreme Court confrontation case that arose after the conviction, leaving those for a future proceeding. That reflects how appeals courts often limit themselves to the issues properly before them.
This is a general explanation of one court’s reasoning and does not describe how any other situation would be handled.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.