Knighten v. State, 2D02-79.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2D02-79.,2D02-79.
• Citation: 829 So.2d 249
• Parties: Toney KNIGHTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

829 So.2d 249

Toney KNIGHTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-79.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 4, 2002.

DAVIS, Judge.

Toney Knighten appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Knighten seeks DNA testing of pubic hair found at the crime scene that was identified at the time of trial as being consistent with his pubic hair and that was heavily relied upon by the State in convicting him. He maintains that he is innocent of the crime and that the hair is not his. The trial court denied the motion as facially insufficient finding that Knighten had not adequately alleged either that identity was genuinely disputed or how the DNA would exonerate him. We disagree on both issues and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Knighten was convicted in 1982 after jury trial of burglary and two counts of sexual battery and was sentenced to life. The facts of the crime as testified to at trial by the two victims were that a black man unknown to either victim broke into the trailer they shared, forced them into the bedroom, raped both of them, and then fled the scene. At trial both victims identified Knighten as their attacker. In support of the victims' testimony, the State also offered testimony that pubic hair found in the bedroom where the rape occurred could have been Knighten's. It appears that the consistency was based primarily on the determination that the pubic hair was Negroid. (This had additional significance because the two victims were white.) No DNA testing was available at the time, and based on a microscopic visual inspection, the expert could state only that the hair could be Knighten's.

The defense's case relied entirely on a theory of misidentification. Both victims admitted that they had originally identified another man as their attacker and that they had picked this man out of a photo-pak which included a photograph of Knighten. The two only identified Knighten after a show-up conducted several days later. Both victims also acknowledged that there were other inconsistencies between their description of their attacker and Knighten's actual appearance.

In order to rebut the misidentification defense, the State relied heavily on the pubic hair. In closing argument, the Assistant State Attorney made the following argument:

Now, I've saved the best for last, the most important corroborative evidence that we have in this case ... its [sic] the evidence you got toward the end of the day, the evidence from Pat Lasco ... She told you that the two Negroid hairs taken from the floor of the bedroom where the attack occurred, that those two hairs matched in characteristics the pubic hairs of the defendant, Toney Knighten. She also told you that those two pubic hairs could have originated from Toney Knighten. No emotionalism, no room for mistake. Ask yourself what is the probability that someone with pubic hairs exactly like Toney Knighten's was in that trailer in that bedroom and on that carpet. Its [sic] not very likely.

Now, just briefly we have five points of direct testimony that is reliable enough in itself ... Last and most important, the characteristics of the pubic hairs in the bedroom are identical with the characteristics of the defendant, Toney Knighten's.

So, when [defense counsel] says our identification evidence is solely based on witness identification, that's a totally incorrect statement. He talks about the chances of mistaken identity. I would ask you to consider what the chances of mistaken identity are when you have matching—exactly the same pubic hairs.

Knighten now seeks DNA testing of that hair to determine if in fact it is his.

Rule 3.853¹ sets forth the requirements for a facially sufficient motion for postconviction DNA testing. In order to be facially sufficient the motion must include the following:

(1) a statement of the facts relied on in support of the motion, including a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and how it originally was obtained;

(2) a statement that the evidence was not tested

...