Ramirez v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. SC92975.,SC92975. |
Citation | 810 So.2d 836 |
Parties | Joseph J. RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Christina A. Spaulding, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Sandra S. Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, FL, for Appellee.
We have on appeal the judgment and sentence of the trial court imposing the death penalty on Joseph J. Ramirez following his third trial for the first-degree murder of a night courier. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We reverse the convictions and vacate the sentences for the same reason as before—i.e., the trial court erroneously admitted evidence based on the knife mark identification procedure of Robert Hart.
This is an appeal following the third trial of Ramirez for a 1983 murder.1 The prior reversals were based on the trial court's admission ("For the first time in the history of the Florida courts," as the first trial court put it) of testimony by Miami crime technician Robert Hart wherein he stated that, based on his knife-mark identification procedure, Ramirez's knife was the murder weapon to the exclusion of all others. The facts underlying the first trial are set forth in Ramirez v. State, 542 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1989) (Ramirez I):
Hart's specific knife mark identification evidence played a crucial role in the trial:
The trial court allowed the expert to state, "The result of my examination made from the microscopic similarity, which I observed from both the cut cartilage and the standard mark, was the stab wound in the victim was caused by this particular knife to the exclusion of all others." The technician explained that he had compared a piece of cut cartilage from the body of the victim to knife impressions, using the knife in question, but had made no comparisons with other knives.
Ramirez I, 542 So.2d at 354 (emphasis added). Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to death.
This Court reversed the conviction, ruling that while the knife itself was admissible, Hart's testimony that this particular knife was conclusively the murder weapon was "self-serving" and inadmissible:
In reviewing the record, we find that no scientific predicate was established from independent evidence to show that a specific knife can be identified from the marks made on cartilage. The only evidence received was the expert's self-serving statement supporting this procedure. The medical examiner testified that this type of knife could have made this type of stab wound. The trial judge expressed concern about this type of evidence when [the judge] stated, "For the first time in the history of the Florida courts ... I have permitted into evidence knife prints, which the jury considered in the course of arriving at their verdict."
Ramirez I, 542 So.2d at 354-55.
Prior to the second trial, the court conducted a hearing wherein Hart testified concerning the reliability of his identification theory and submitted an article he had written on the subject; Ramirez was not allowed to present opposing evidence at the hearing. The court ruled the State's evidence admissible, and Ramirez again was convicted and sentenced to death. This Court again reversed:
Just as important as the burden of proof [at the hearing] is the fact that the hearing must be conducted in a fair manner. There is no question that a hearing on the admissibility of novel scientific evidence is an adversarial proceeding in which conflicting evidence is presented to the trial judge as the trier of fact. Without the testimony of experts presented by both parties, the trial judge is denied a full presentation of relevant evidence. This is especially important in a criminal trial where the defendant is guaranteed certain constitutional rights, not the least of which is the due process right to present witnesses in one's behalf.
Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla.1995) (Ramirez II).
Prior to the third trial, the court conducted a hearing wherein the State presented the testimony of six experts to support Hart's identification methodology. The defense presented one expert in rebuttal. The trial court again admitted the evidence, and Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to death based on four aggravating circumstances,2 no statutory mitigating circumstances, and three nonstatutory mitigating circumstances,3 overriding the jury's nine-to-three vote in favor of life imprisonment.4 Ramirez raises nine issues on appeal,5 but we find a single claim dispositive.
Ramirez asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the State's experts to testify that the knife found in Ramirez's car was the murder weapon to the exclusion of every other knife in the world. He contends that Hart's identification method is novel and untested and the State has failed to present sufficient proof of its reliability.
An expert witness is normally permitted to testify relative to generally accepted scientific theory in the witness's area of expertise. The witness's testimony is subject to the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2000), which focuses on "legal" reliability and applies to all evidence. When a court is faced with expert testimony based on a new or untried scientific theory, however, the balancing test in section 90.403 is inapposite...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delisle v. Crane Co.
...proper application of the Frye standard is unable to sufficiently guard against these concerns.As this Court explained in Ramirez v. State , 810 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2001), when applying Frye , a court is not required to determine that evidence is "generally accepted" on the basis of a mere "nos......
-
Bottoson v. Moore
...great weight."). 35. See § 921.141(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). 36. See id. 37. See § 921.141(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). 38. See Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 843 (Fla.2001) ("[T]he State must prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable 39. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.440; Fla. Std. Ju......
-
Gosciminski v. State
...more than the testimony of an expert who has a personal stake in the theory or is prone to an institutional bias. Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 844 n. 13 (Fla.2001). “[G]eneral scientific recognition requires the testimony of impartial experts or scientists. It is this independent and im......
-
Calloway v. State
...witness are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Marsh v. Valyou , 977 So.2d 543, 547 (Fla. 2007) ; Ramirez v. State , 810 So.2d 836, 844 (Fla. 2001). Frye hearings only apply to novel scientific methodologies; once the methodology has been established and recognized by ......
-
Table of cases
...§13:13.3 -R- R.S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1049, §9:98 Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, §7:85 Ramirez v. State , 810 So.2d 836, 849-851 (Fla. 2001), §9:30.3 Ramona R. v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 802, §8:22.1 Ramona v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 107, §9......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...of the per se limit] was intoxicated when it was taken, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary”); Ramirez v. State , 810 So.2d 836, 849-851 (Fla. 2001) (lack of error rate indicating infallibility, i.e., an error rate of zero, undermines conclusion of general acceptability);......
-
Cross-Examining Causation Experts
...expert testimony must be both scientifically reliable (commonly referred to as the Frye test) and legally reliable. Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2001). Legal reliability requires that the evidence be relevant and probative and that, under §90.403 of the Evidence Code, the probativ......
-
Containing Canakaris: tailoring Florida's one-size-fits-most standard of review.
...all evidentiary questions are treated in Florida as matters of pure judicial discretion. A rare exception appears in Ramirez v. State, 810 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2001), where the Florida Supreme Court noted that rulings on the admissibility of novel scientific evidence (Frye (33) orders) are subj......