Carl Dausch v. State of Florida
141 So. 3d 513
Fla.2014Background
- Victim Adrian Mobley was found murdered July 15, 1987; his body was hogtied and beaten; his car and wallet were missing.
- Latent prints and cigarette butts were recovered from the abandoned car; anal swabs from the body contained semen; two semen stains on the sheet were tested separately.
- Fifteen years later DNA testing linked profiles from the cigarette butts and anal swabs to data that identified Carl Dausch as a possible match; investigators obtained his buccal swabs and fingerprints in 2004.
- FDLE’s STR analysis matched Dausch at all 13 loci from a cigarette butt sample (very low random-match probabilities) but produced weaker/nonexclusion or exclusion results from anal swabs and semen stains; some statistics had a tenfold deviation range.
- Latent prints from the car exterior and a cigarette lighter wrapper matched Dausch, but no prints of his were found in the driver’s immediate area; the wallet found elsewhere bore fingerprints not belonging to Dausch.
- At trial the State relied entirely on circumstantial evidence (DNA, fingerprints, witness of a lone male abandoning the car, and a pretrial suicide attempt) to prove Dausch’s identity as the perpetrator; the Florida Supreme Court held the evidence insufficient to support conviction and ordered acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dausch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove perpetrator identity for first‑degree murder | Circumstantial proof (DNA nonexclusion, fingerprints in car, witness, suicide attempt) suffices when viewed together | Evidence only places Dausch in the car; alternative (he hitchhiked with the car’s true possessor) remains reasonable | Reversed: competent substantial evidence was insufficient to prove Dausch was the murderer; judgment of acquittal ordered |
| Weight and probative value of DNA nonexclusion/mixed profiles | DNA that includes (non‑excludes) Dausch, even if not conclusive, corroborates other evidence and may be weighed by the jury | DNA results were inconsistent, partially excluded Dausch, and statistics (with tenfold deviation) were not compelling | Majority: DNA evidence here did not supply competent substantial proof of identity when viewed in whole; dissent: jury could weigh DNA with other evidence and find sufficiency |
| Admissibility and role of Dausch’s pretrial suicide attempt (consciousness of guilt) | Suicide attempt is probative of consciousness of guilt and supports identity inference | Attempt is ambiguous or not probative of identity/homicide | Majority acknowledged the attempt but found overall evidence still insufficient; dissent would give the suicide attempt weight toward sufficiency and would order a new trial on other error rather than acquittal |
| Fingerprint evidence and witness identification placing Dausch with the car | Prints and witness testimony place Dausch as driver/abandoner and corroborate DNA/other evidence | Prints only place him inside the car; absence of prints in driver area and wallet prints not his support hitchhiking hypothesis | Court: prints link Dausch to the vehicle but do not exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence (hitchhiking); insufficient in aggregate to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. State, 923 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2006) (standard for sufficiency review in capital cases)
- Reynolds v. State, 934 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 2006) (special standard when conviction is wholly circumstantial)
- Lindsey v. State, 14 So.3d 211 (Fla. 2009) (circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Serrano v. State, 64 So.3d 93 (Fla. 2011) (circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency and State’s threshold burden)
- Walker v. State, 707 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1998) (DNA evidence weight vs. admissibility)
- Washington v. State, 653 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1995) (example of cumulative identity evidence — DNA and other corroboration)