Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2953
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71 (2026)

Post conviction DNA testing definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 6, 2010
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 77 - 128th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in sections 2953.71 to 2953.83 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Application" or "application for DNA testing" means a request through postconviction relief for the state to do DNA testing on biological material from the case in which the offender was convicted of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code.

(B) "Biological material" means any product of a human body containing DNA.

(C) "Chain of custody" means a record or other evidence that tracks a subject sample of biological material from the time the biological material was first obtained until the time it currently exists in its place of storage and, in relation to a DNA sample, a record or other evidence that tracks the DNA sample from the time it was first obtained until it currently exists in its place of storage. For purposes of this division, examples of when biological material or a DNA sample is first obtained include, but are not limited to, obtaining the material or sample at the scene of a crime, from a victim, from an offender, or in any other manner or time as is appropriate in the facts and circumstances present.

(D) "Custodial agency" means the group or entity that has the responsibility to maintain biological material in question.

(E) "Custodian" means the person who is the primary representative of a custodial agency.

(F) "Eligible offender" means an offender who is eligible under division (C) of section 2953.72 of the Revised Code to request DNA testing to be conducted under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code.

(G) "Exclusion" or "exclusion result" means a result of DNA testing that scientifically precludes or forecloses the subject offender as a contributor of biological material recovered from the crime scene or victim in question, in relation to the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and for which the sentence of death or prison term was imposed upon the offender.

(H) "Extracting personnel" means medically approved personnel who are employed to physically obtain an offender's DNA specimen for purposes of DNA testing under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code.

(I) "Inclusion" or "inclusion result" means a result of DNA testing that scientifically cannot exclude, or that holds accountable, the subject offender as a contributor of biological material recovered from the crime scene or victim in question, in relation to the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and for which the sentence of death or prison term was imposed upon the offender.

(J) "Inconclusive" or "inconclusive result" means a result of DNA testing that is rendered when a scientifically appropriate and definitive DNA analysis or result, or both, cannot be determined.

(K) "Offender" means a criminal offender who was sentenced by a court, or by a jury and a court, of this state.

(L) "Outcome determinative" means that had the results of DNA testing of the subject offender been presented at the trial of the subject offender requesting DNA testing and been found relevant and admissible with respect to the felony offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing, and had those results been analyzed in the context of and upon consideration of all available admissible evidence related to the offender's case as described in division (D) of section 2953.74 of the Revised Code, there is a strong probability that no reasonable factfinder would have found the offender guilty of that offense or, if the offender was sentenced to death relative to that offense, would have found the offender guilty of the aggravating circumstance or circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing and that is or are the basis of that sentence of death.

(M) "Parent sample" means the biological material first obtained from a crime scene or a victim of an offense for which an offender is an eligible offender, and from which a sample will be presently taken to do a DNA comparison to the DNA of the subject offender under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code.

(N) "Prison" and "community control sanction" have the same meanings as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(O) "Prosecuting attorney" means the prosecuting attorney who, or whose office, prosecuted the case in which the subject offender was convicted of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing.

(P) "Prosecuting authority" means the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general.

(Q) "Reasonable diligence" means a degree of diligence that is comparable to the diligence a reasonable person would employ in searching for information regarding an important matter in the person's own life.

(R) "Testing authority" means a laboratory at which DNA testing will be conducted under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code.

(S) "Parole" and "post-release control" have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.

(T) "Sexually oriented offense" and "child-victim oriented offense" have the same meanings as in section 2950.01 of the Revised Code.

(U) "Definitive DNA test" means a DNA test that clearly establishes that biological material from the perpetrator of the crime was recovered from the crime scene and also clearly establishes whether or not the biological material is that of the eligible offender. A prior DNA test is not definitive if the eligible offender proves by a preponderance of the evidence that because of advances in DNA technology there is a possibility of discovering new biological material from the perpetrator that the prior DNA test may have failed to discover. Prior testing may have been a prior "definitive DNA test" as to some biological evidence but may not have been a prior "definitive DNA test" as to other biological evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 153 cases (58 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 795 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 795 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 36× “{¶ 3} The only issues presently before this court relate to Noling’s request for postconviction DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.81. A. Noling filed an application for DNA testing of a cigarette butt {¶ 4} Noling filed his first application for DNA testing in 2008,…”
State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4744 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 13× “It confers jurisdiction over a select class of DNA-based actual-innocence claims-only those arising from an eligible offender's application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to 2953.81 or under former R.”
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8252 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 16× “C. 2953.73(E)(1), which grants appellate review of the denial of DNA applications from capital offenders to the Supreme Court of Ohio exclusively.”
State v. Noling, 2013 Ohio 1764 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 19× “Noting that a DNA test conducted before trial had already excluded Noling as well as each codefendant as the person who had smoked the cigarette, the trial court rejected Noling’s application because it found the earlier DNA test to be definitive.”
State v. Widmer, 2013 Ohio 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “Currently, under R.C. 2953.71 through .81, eligible offenders may petition the trial court to order state funded DNA testing on biological material from their cases.”
State v. Gavin, 2022 Ohio 3027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 25× “Postconviction DNA testing {¶15} Postconviction DNA testing is governed by R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.84. An “eligible offender” for purposes of R.”
State v. Prade, 2010 Ohio 1842 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 12× “74(A) precludes postconviction DNA testing when “a prior definitive DNA test has been conducted.” The trial court also determined that DNA evidence had 2 January Term, 2010 been introduced at defendant’s trial and excluded defendant as the source of the DNA samples taken from…”
State v. Sells, 2017 Ohio 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “The trial court reviewed the evidence presented at trial and, applying R.C. 2953.71, et seq., concluded that an “exclusion result” would not be “outcome determinative.”
State v. Ayers, 923 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “{¶ 1} Appellant, David Ayers, appeals from a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas order denying his second application for deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) testing pursuant to R.C. 2953.71 et seq. Ayers presents two assignments of error challenging the trial court’s finding that…”
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “We noted that Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeat (“Y-STR”) DNA Analysis was not available at the time of Emerick’s trial and that the development of Y-STR technology was partially responsible for the General Assembly’s decision to enact R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.83, so that…”
State v. Hayden, 2012 Ohio 6183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “{¶ 9} In September 2004, Hayden filed an application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to R.C. 2953.83, which was enacted in 2003.”
State v. Buehler, 863 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 4× “{¶ 1} We are asked in this appeal to determine whether the DNA testing procedures established in R.C 2953.71 through 2953.84 require a trial court to order the prosecuting attorney to prepare and file a DNA evidence report in every instance, despite a showing that a specific DNA…”
Show all 153 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(A) — 2 cases
State v. Hayden, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2005), 2005 Ohio 4025 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “We noted that Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeat (“Y-STR”) DNA Analysis was not available at the time of Emerick’s trial and that the development of Y-STR technology was partially responsible for the General Assembly’s decision to enact R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.83, so that…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(A)(8) — 1 case
State v. Montgomery, 2012 Ohio 1640 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(A)(I) — 1 case
State v. Hayden, 2012 Ohio 6183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶ 9} In September 2004, Hayden filed an application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to R.C. 2953.83, which was enacted in 2003.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(B) — 5 cases
State v. Gavin, 2022 Ohio 3027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Postconviction DNA testing {¶15} Postconviction DNA testing is governed by R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.84. An “eligible offender” for purposes of R.”
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “We noted that Y-Chromosome Short Tandem Repeat (“Y-STR”) DNA Analysis was not available at the time of Emerick’s trial and that the development of Y-STR technology was partially responsible for the General Assembly’s decision to enact R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.83, so that…”
State v. Blair, 2018 Ohio 4041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Warren, 2022 Ohio 4743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Livingston, 2022 Ohio 3312 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(F) — 10 cases
State v. Emerick, 868 N.E.2d 742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Gavin, 2022 Ohio 3027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Postconviction DNA testing {¶15} Postconviction DNA testing is governed by R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.84. An “eligible offender” for purposes of R.”
State v. Reynolds, 926 N.E.2d 315 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Ingram, 2012 Ohio 333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(G) — 18 cases
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 795 (Ohio 2018). “{¶ 3} The only issues presently before this court relate to Noling’s request for postconviction DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.81. A. Noling filed an application for DNA testing of a cigarette butt {¶ 4} Noling filed his first application for DNA testing in 2008,…”
State v. Widmer, 2013 Ohio 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Currently, under R.C. 2953.71 through .81, eligible offenders may petition the trial court to order state funded DNA testing on biological material from their cases.”
State v. Sells, 2017 Ohio 987 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “The trial court reviewed the evidence presented at trial and, applying R.C. 2953.71, et seq., concluded that an “exclusion result” would not be “outcome determinative.”
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Riley, 2024 Ohio 5712 (Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(I) — 4 cases
State v. Hayden, 2012 Ohio 6183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶ 9} In September 2004, Hayden filed an application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to R.C. 2953.83, which was enacted in 2003.”
State v. Jordan, 2024 Ohio 2462 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Hayden, 2015 Ohio 3262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Dillon, 2025 Ohio 254 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(J) — 2 cases
State v. Hayden, 2012 Ohio 6183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶ 9} In September 2004, Hayden filed an application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 to R.C. 2953.83, which was enacted in 2003.”
State v. Hayden, 2015 Ohio 3262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(L) — 63 cases
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8252 (Ohio 2016). “C. 2953.73(E)(1), which grants appellate review of the denial of DNA applications from capital offenders to the Supreme Court of Ohio exclusively.”
State v. Ayers, 923 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 1} Appellant, David Ayers, appeals from a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas order denying his second application for deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) testing pursuant to R.C. 2953.71 et seq. Ayers presents two assignments of error challenging the trial court’s finding that…”
State v. Gavin, 2022 Ohio 3027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Postconviction DNA testing {¶15} Postconviction DNA testing is governed by R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.84. An “eligible offender” for purposes of R.”
State v. Widmer, 2013 Ohio 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Currently, under R.C. 2953.71 through .81, eligible offenders may petition the trial court to order state funded DNA testing on biological material from their cases.”
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(M) — 1 case
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 4069 (Ohio 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(Q) — 2 cases
State v. Rawls, 2016 Ohio 7962 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Scott, 2025 Ohio 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(R) — 1 case
State v. Warren, 2022 Ohio 4743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.71(U) — 15 cases
State v. Noling, 2013 Ohio 1764 (Ohio 2013). “Noting that a DNA test conducted before trial had already excluded Noling as well as each codefendant as the person who had smoked the cigarette, the trial court rejected Noling’s application because it found the earlier DNA test to be definitive.”
State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 795 (Ohio 2018). “{¶ 3} The only issues presently before this court relate to Noling’s request for postconviction DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 through 2953.81. A. Noling filed an application for DNA testing of a cigarette butt {¶ 4} Noling filed his first application for DNA testing in 2008,…”
State v. Barnette, 2024 Ohio 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Hayden, 2015 Ohio 3262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. King, 2017 Ohio 181 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.