Shorter v. State
98 So. 3d 685
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Shorter was convicted of robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- A gas-station manager described the robber and identified Shorter, stating he was 100% sure after a photo lineup.
- Pretrial, the State sought a DNA forensic report; defense moved to admit it as a business record without calling a witness.
- At trial, Detective testimony about Shorter's post-Miranda interview raised a Fifth Amendment-termination issue; the court permitted limited testimony up to a point, then sustained an objection when Shorter allegedly asked to return to his cell.
- DNA analysis of the keypad DNA showed multiple contributors with the manager as major contributor; Shorter was excluded.
- The jury convicted Shorter on both counts; on appeal, the State cross-appealed regarding the DNA report’s admissibility as a business record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-Miranda termination of questioning was properly handled | Shorter did re-invoke silence by head-down sigh; testimony violated Fifth Amendment. | State argues initial waiver; only clear request to terminate occurred when Shorter asked to return to his cell. | Trial court properly denied mistrial; no reversible error. |
| Whether the forensic DNA report is admissible as a business record | Defense contends report lacks trustworthiness for business-record exception. | State asserts proper predicates were met and report admissible under 90.803(6). | Affirmed admission as business record; cross-appeal affirmed with caveats about witness testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla.2007) (reinvocation standard after Miranda waiver)
- State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997) (clarity required to terminate questioning)
- Lukehart v. State, 776 So.2d 906 (Fla.2000) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach)
- McElroy v. Perry, 753 So.2d 121 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (CME reports lack trustworthiness; business-record exception concerns)
- Love v. Garcia, 634 So.2d 158 (Fla.1994) (relevance and potential unfair prejudice considerations)
- State v. Johnson, 982 So.2d 672 (Fla.2008) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial reports)
- Huyser, 561 N.W.2d 481 (Mich.App.1997) (forensic reports prepared for litigation lack trustworthiness)
- State v. Tomah, 736 A.2d 1047 (Me.1999) (forensic reports prepared for litigation lack trustworthiness)