Simon v. State
225 So. 3d 934
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 10, 2009, Johnathan Simon followed and opened fire on a group of students walking to a Burger King; Jason Maharaj was killed and Harris Ostral was wounded.
- Witnesses at the scene (Ostral and Angela Gothier-Rodriguez) identified Simon as the shooter; Simon was found shortly after four blocks away, appearing nervous and giving an implausible explanation for his whereabouts.
- Police recovered the firearm wrapped in a white shirt; casings/projectiles from the scene matched that firearm.
- The state’s DNA analyst described lab procedures and testified that her results undergo a technical review by another analyst/supervisor; no objection was made at trial to this testimony.
- DNA testing yielded no comparable profile from the shirt or firearm, but a mixture on the magazine included a one-in-fifty chance that Simon was a contributor.
- Simon was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder; he appealed claiming the DNA expert improperly bolstered her credibility by mentioning peer review and that this was fundamental error requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert’s testimony that another analyst reviews her work constituted reversible fundamental error | Simon: The statement improperly bolstered the expert’s credibility and was fundamental error requiring reversal | State: Any bolstering (if improper) was harmless; strong independent evidence supported convictions | Court: Even assuming improper bolstering, it was not fundamental error and convictions stand |
| Whether failure to object at trial raises reversible error | Simon: Fundamental error doctrine applies despite lack of contemporaneous objection | State: Absent objection, defendant must show fundamental error, a high standard | Court: Applied fundamental-error standard and found it not met |
| Whether DNA evidence was outcome-determinative | Simon: DNA bolstering made the limited DNA evidence more persuasive | State: DNA was inconclusive (1-in-50 mixture) and prosecutor conceded limits; other eyewitness and circumstantial evidence sufficed | Court: DNA evidence was not conclusive and was not essential to verdict |
| Whether eyewitness and circumstantial evidence independently supported verdict | Simon: Challenges to identification and circumstantial inferences | State: Multiple eyewitness IDs, physical match to description, and suspicious post-shooting behavior supported guilt | Court: Eyewitness and circumstantial evidence were strong enough to sustain convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kopsho v. State, 84 So. 3d 204 (discretionary review of evidentiary rulings)
- Williams v. State, 209 So. 3d 543 (defendant who failed to object must show fundamental error)
- Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (fundamental error must be harmful by nature)
- Schwartz v. State, 695 So. 2d 452 (bolstering by expert found harmless)
- Bunche v. State, 5 So. 3d 38 (expert bolstering affirmed where error was not prejudicial)
- Tolbert v. State, 114 So. 3d 291 (DNA testimony that did not specifically implicate defendant not reversible despite bolstering)