Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 6, 2010No. 2D08-5505Published

1Concurrence

ALTENBERND, Judge, Specially

concurring.

I agree that this case is controlled by Clark v. State, 995 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). I wrote a separate concurrence in Clark. Id. at 1114. I am still concerned that a change in scientific opinion within a relevant scientific community — a change that occurred almost twenty years after the trial in this case — may require a different postconviction analysis than the typical claim of newly discovered evidence.

In a typical postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, the defendant alleges that certain evidence existed at the time of trial that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1998
  3. Schwab v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2007
  4. Commonwealth v. KretchmarSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Padron v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API