STATE v. BETHLEY (2019)

The State petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order granting Kenyatta Bethley's motion in limine to exclude from his trial statistical testimony regarding DNA evidence. We grant the petition and quash the order.

An expert need not be a statistician to testify regarding the statistical significance of a DNA match. Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 158 (Fla. 2002). However, the expert must “demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources.” Id. (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 164 (Fla. 1997) ); see also Butler v. State, 842 So.2d 817, 828 (Fla. 2003) (“[A] sufficient knowledge of the authorities pertinent to the database is an adequate basis on which to render an opinion.”). We conclude the State's expert satisfied this requirement and therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in excluding her testimony. See State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla. 1988) (stating that certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review nonfinal pretrial orders in criminal cases which negatively affect the State's ability to prosecute).

Petition granted.

KELLY, Judge.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.