Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

The Court of Appeal, in ordering a new trial for a man who was convicted four years ago on a murder charge, made a special plea for trial judges to desist from making findings that ought to be left to the jury.

Hozen Horne, also called 'Metro Man', is to face a retrial for the murder of 12-year-old Leisha Smith because of a judge's error in reviewing the DNA evidence. Horne, of Essex Hall, St Andrew, was arrested in 1998 and charged with Smith's murder.

The girl's partially decomposed body, with the feet tied, was found by a fisherman under the Portmore causeway on June 12, 1998. The cause of death was drowning. The Court of Appeal, after hearing submissions from attorney-at-la McBean that the judge had failed to direct the jury properly on the issue of the DNA evidence, upheld the submissions and on Monday ordered a retrial.

Horne's sentence of life imprisonment and the order that he should serve 20 years before he could be paroled were set aside. It was alleged at the trial in the St. Catherine Circuit Court that some time between June 19 and 21, Horne murdered Smith. Witnesses had testified that on the night of June 19, 1998, they saw someone in Horne's car fitting the age and description of the deceased.

Claimed he knew girl

Horne said in his defence that he knew the girl. He denied taking her in his car or to his house on the night of June 19, 1998. He said he last saw the girl when she visited his workplace on Molynes Road, St Andrew, and he gave her $20.

The girl's body was exhumed and evidence was given at the trial that DNA tests were conducted on blood samples taken from Horne, items taken from his house and tissue taken from the deceased. The forensic analyst formed the view that, based on the blood analysis, there was a high degree of certainty the deceased was inside Horne's house.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Seymour Panton, president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Hazel Harris and Justice Mahadev Dukharan (acting), held that there were defects in the judge's summation in relation to the DNA evidence. The court then called on judges to pay particular attention to the guidelines set out in the Doheny and Adams case which stated that "the trial judge was required to give careful directions in respect of expert evidence and guidance should be given to the jury. The court ought not to make findings that ought to be left to the jury."