lab analysis in Ohio

2022No.2001-P-0031, 2004-Ohio-334 (Although the state suspected the confiscated substance was cocaine prior to its analysis, the speedy trial time did not apply from the date of the first indictment because the lab analysis results were not received until after the first indictment). “[A]lthough the State may have had a good idea that the substance was [Alprazolam] prior to the analysis date, they did not know for sure until the substance was analyzed.” Clark at ¶ 73.

2014No. 2001-P-0031, 2004-Ohio-334 (noting that even though the state may have suspected the confiscated substance was cocaine prior to its analysis, the speedy-trial time did not apply from the date of the first indictment because the lab analysis results were not received until after the first indictment).

2024See, State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-5903 (10th Dist.), ¶11 (“The Second, Fourth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth District Courts of Appeals have all held that a subsequent indictment which was dependent upon a lab analysis that was not available to the state at the time of the original indictment starts the running of a new speedy trial clock,” citing State v. Mohamed, 2009–Ohio–6658 10th Dist.), ¶ 30); State v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-2959 (3rd Dist.), ¶31.

2024Id. {¶28} Because both Blair and Clark were present during the shooting, officers obtained search warrants to collect DNA from both men and sent those swabs to the lab for analysis and comparison to DNA found on the gun.

2023Cuyahoga No. 103200, 2016-Ohio-2937, ¶ 27 .

2022No. 03CA0064-M, 2004-Ohio-726 (For purposes of speedy trial time, the state was not subject to the timeframe applicable to the Ross App. No. 21CA3745 12 original charges where the subsequent indictment depended on confirmation from a lab report that the white powder confiscated was cocaine); Clark, 11th Dist.

2020Moreover, while “the definitive way, * * * the absolutely scientific way to tell” if mold exists is a lab test, Rudnick stated that “you can render an opinion within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty based on experience that is mold growth.” Id. at p. 34. {¶ 50} As mentioned, “the test of reliability is 'flexible,' and Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.” Kumho Tire Co. 526 U.S. at 141 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 .

2020Moreover, while “the definitive way, * * * the absolutely scientific way to tell” if mold exists is a lab test, Rudnick stated that “you can render an opinion within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty based on experience that is mold growth.” Id. at p. 34. {¶ 50} As mentioned, “the test of reliability is 'flexible,' and Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.” Kumho Tire Co. 526 U.S. at 141 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 .

2020Instead, “the trial court may, at its discretion, consider the Daubert factors to the extent relevant.” (Emphasis added.) Drummond, 111 Ohio St.3d 14 , 2006-Ohio-5084 , 854 N.E.2d 1038 , at ¶ 118, citing Kumho at 148.

2012Furthermore, the Defendant alleges that the positive result in this case was not confirmed by one or more dissimilar analytical techniques or methods. {¶ 13} State v. Neuhoff, 119 Ohio App.3d 501 , 695 N.E.2d 825 (5th Dist. 1997) cited by the trial court is distinguishable.

2012Furthermore, the Defendant alleges that the positive result in this case was not confirmed by one or more dissimilar analytical techniques or methods. {¶ 13} State v. Neuhoff, 119 Ohio App.3d 501 , 695 N.E.2d 825 (5th Dist. 1997) cited by the trial court is distinguishable.

2008He claimed that had his trial "counsel obtained an independent lab analysis it would have created reasonable doubt as to the weight of the substance involved, making it a reasonable probability that the jury would have convicted him of a lesser offense." We held that "[r]es judicata does not bar this aspect of defendant's [Bradley's] petition because we could not have considered the post-trial lab report, which was evidence from outside the trial record, on the direct appeal." Id., citing State v. Budreaux , Cuyahoga App. No. 63698, 2003-Ohio-4335 .

2007Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 . {¶ 12} In sum, defendant maintains that had his counsel obtained an independent lab analysis it would have created reasonable doubt as to the weight of the substance involved, making it a reasonable probability that the jury would have convicted him of a lesser offense.

2003State v. Maupin (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 473 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

1999Id.