Background
Evin A. Figueroa Hernandez was convicted on six counts of criminal sexual activity with a minor, who was the twelve-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. The charges stemmed from an incident on July 16, 2020, where Figueroa Hernandez entered the victim’s bedroom, locked the door, and sexually assaulted her. The victim immediately reported the assault to her mother, who called 911. A subsequent medical exam collected DNA swabs from the victim.
At trial, the prosecution presented DNA evidence analyzed by Cosette Alvarez of the Miami-Dade Police Department’s crime lab. Alvarez testified that using a DNA subtraction method, she found a mixture of two DNA profiles on the swabs and that the foreign profile matched Figueroa Hernandez’s DNA. The defense’s expert, Tiffany Roy, challenged the reliability of the lab’s methods. Roy argued the lab used an outdated manual process prone to analyst subjectivity, especially with low-grade or mixed DNA samples, and failed to adopt newer, more reliable software like STRmix. Roy also claimed the analyst interpreted data below the lab’s own threshold for scientific certainty.
After being convicted and sentenced, Figueroa Hernandez appealed both the convictions and the trial court’s denial of a postconviction motion. He raised eleven procedural challenges and argued that the DNA evidence was improperly admitted. He also claimed his convictions for multiple counts of lewd and lascivious molestation violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as they arose from a single criminal episode.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed both the convictions and the denial of the postconviction motion. The court found no abuse of discretion in any of the trial court’s eleven procedural rulings, which included denying a continuance and limiting certain witness testimony.
Regarding the DNA evidence, the court held that Figueroa Hernandez’s arguments about the crime lab’s outdated methodology and potential for error went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court reasoned that the state’s expert, Alvarez, had provided ample testimony that her procedures were consistent with her lab’s accredited standards, were peer-reviewed, and remained generally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the trial court was within its discretion to admit the expert testimony under the Daubert standard and allow the jury to weigh the competing expert opinions.
The court also rejected the double jeopardy argument. It held that each of the charged offenses was a distinct criminal sexual act. Citing Florida Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that a new criminal act begins “each time one touch ended and another was initiated,” even if the acts occur in close succession. Because Figueroa Hernandez was charged with separate counts for touching the victim’s breasts, buttocks, and vagina, each touch represented a “successive impulse” and could be prosecuted as a separate offense without violating double jeopardy.
Key Takeaways
- Challenges to the specific methodology of an accredited crime lab’s DNA analysis, such as the software used or interpretation of low-grade samples, may go to the evidence’s weight for a jury to consider, rather than its admissibility, so long as the underlying method remains generally accepted in the scientific community.
- Under Florida law, separate and sequential touches during a single sexual assault can be charged as distinct criminal offenses without violating double jeopardy protections, as each touch can be considered a “new act” resulting from a “successive impulse.”
- Trial courts have broad discretion on procedural and evidentiary rulings, such as granting continuances or limiting the scope of witness cross-examination, and these decisions are reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar for excluding expert DNA evidence in Florida courts. It clarifies that debates over whether a crime lab is using the “best” or most modern technology are often treated as a “battle of the experts” for the jury to resolve, rather than a legal reason to suppress the evidence entirely, provided the lab’s methods are still deemed scientifically reliable. This approach gives prosecutors significant leeway in presenting forensic evidence, even when defense experts can point to potential weaknesses or superior alternative methods.
Furthermore, the court’s application of the “successive impulses” doctrine in the context of double jeopardy affirms the state’s ability to “stack” charges for distinct acts committed within a single criminal episode. This has major implications for sentencing, as it allows prosecutors to secure multiple convictions from one incident, substantially increasing a defendant’s exposure to prison time and strengthening the prosecution’s position in plea negotiations.