From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marsh v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 3, 2002
812 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that DNA testing of rape kit would be superfluous because the defendant's unsuccessful defense at trial was consensual sex and not identity

Summary of this case from Robinson v. State
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

No. 3D02-176.

April 3, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Lawrence A. Schwartz, J.

Robert Finlay, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

FLETCHER, Judge.

Aaron Keith Marsh appeals from the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

In Marsh's current (his third) post-conviction motion, he requests among other things that the rape kit evidence introduced at trial on a sexual battery charge be released for DNA testing. While we would be sympathetic to DNA testing in a case where it would be of value, this is not such a case. Marsh's request for DNA testing of the rape kit evidence is without merit, as any results would be superfluous because Marsh admitted that he was the person who had sexual intercourse with the victim. Marsh's unsuccessful defense at trial had been one of consensual sex, not identity. See § 925.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Hartline v. State, 806 So.2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Galloway v. State, 802 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Marsh v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 3, 2002
812 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

holding that DNA testing of rape kit would be superfluous because the defendant's unsuccessful defense at trial was consensual sex and not identity

Summary of this case from Robinson v. State

holding that DNA testing of rape kit would be superfluous because the defendant's unsuccessful defense at trial was consensual sex and not identity

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Crosby

holding that movant was not entitled to DNA testing where defense at trial had been one of consensual sex, not identity

Summary of this case from Saffold v. State

In Marsh v. Florida, 812 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2002), the petitioner, who had been found guilty of sexual battery, failed to show that his identity was an issue at trial because he had admitted to having had sex with the victim, claiming that the encounter had been consensual.

Summary of this case from Graham v. State

In Marsh v. Florida, 812 So.2d 579 (Fla. 2002), the petitioner, who had been found guilty of sexual battery, failed to show that his identity was an issue at trial because he had admitted to having had sex with the victim, claiming that the encounter had been consensual.

Summary of this case from Graham v. State
Case details for

Marsh v. State

Case Details

Full title:AARON KEITH MARSH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 3, 2002

Citations

812 So. 2d 579 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Saffold v. State

Saffold also failed to provide any details of the evidence that was introduced at trial except to say that…

Robinson v. State

Thus, his identity and physical contact with the decedent are not at issue. See Marsh v. State, 812 So.2d…

6 Citing Cases