Montez v. State
228 So. 3d 621
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2000 Montez was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. A black nylon stocking tied around the victim's neck was admitted at trial as State's Exhibit #5.
- Montez filed a rule 3.853 motion seeking postconviction DNA testing of the stocking; the trial court initially denied the motion and this court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing (Montez v. State, 86 So. 3d 1243).
- On remand the trial court found the item existed, ordered DNA testing by FDLE, and stated testing would likely be admissible and that there was "reasonable proof" testing would be authentic. The item was later handed to TPD and found to be in an unsealed paper bag before being placed in a sealed envelope for FDLE.
- FDLE reported DNA matching both Montez and the victim. Montez later filed a second rule 3.853 motion arguing the tested stocking was unauthenticated and possibly contaminated or substituted with an identical stocking.
- The postconviction court summarily denied the second motion, reasoning the stocking had already been tested and that trial testimony identified State's Exhibit #5; Montez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Montez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction court made required rule 3.853 findings, including authenticity of the tested evidence | The court failed to determine whether reliable proof established that the item tested was the authentic murder weapon and not contaminated or substituted | The court relied on prior trial identification and FDLE testing showing matches, arguing no further testing necessary | Reversed: trial court erred by not making a specific finding that reliable proof established the tested item's authenticity; remand for evidentiary hearing required |
| Whether DNA results from prior testing could be relied upon despite chain-of-custody and contamination concerns | The tested stocking was found in an unsealed bag and inventory records suggest multiple identical stockings were packaged together; thus prior results may be unreliable | The State pointed to trial identification of Exhibit #5 and the fact the item was released for testing as supporting authenticity | Trial court must evaluate possible contamination/substitution; court cannot summarily accept earlier test results without findings on authenticity and contamination |
| Whether the court properly denied testing of an item allegedly replaced or lost | Montez argued testing of the actual murder weapon is necessary if authenticity is disputed | The court asserted it could not order testing of an item that cannot be found and suggested a replaced item would be inadmissible due to probable tampering | Court rejected the trial court's alternative reasoning; a replacement does not mean the authentic item cannot be found or would necessarily be inadmissible — factual hearing required |
| Scope of remand and what the court should decide on remand | Montez sought testing of the actual murder weapon and findings on authenticity/contamination | State opposed further testing, relying on existing test results and trial identification | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine whether the tested stocking was authentic and uncontaminated and to make the required rule 3.853 findings; no opinion on whether further testing must occur |
Key Cases Cited
- Montez v. State, 86 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA) (discussing required findings under rule 3.853)
- Swafford v. State, 946 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2006) (trial court must make findings whether tested evidence is authentic or contaminated)
- Espinoza v. State, 13 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA) (when defendant raises specific contamination claims, remand to determine authenticity may be required)