(A) If an eligible offender submits an application for DNA testing under section 2953.73 of the Revised Code, the court shall require the prosecuting attorney to use reasonable diligence to determine whether biological material was collected from the crime scene or victim of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing against which a sample from the offender can be compared and whether the parent sample of that biological material still exists at that point in time. In using reasonable diligence to make those determinations, the prosecuting attorney shall rely upon all relevant sources, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) All prosecuting authorities in 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 and in the appeals of, and postconviction proceedings related to, that case;
(2) All law enforcement authorities involved in the investigation of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing;
(3) All custodial agencies involved at any time with the biological material in question;
(4) The custodian of all custodial agencies described in division (A)(3) of this section;
(5) All crime laboratories involved at any time with the biological material in question;
(6) All other reasonable sources.
(B) The prosecuting attorney shall prepare a report that contains the prosecuting attorney's determinations made under division (A) of this section and shall file a copy of the report with the court and provide a copy to the eligible offender and the attorney general.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: State v. Buehler, 863 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2007).
State v. Buehler, 863 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 15דIn reaching its conclusion, the appellate court examined the language of R.C. 2953.75 and 2953.76, which provides that upon the filing of an application, the trial court “shall” order the prosecuting attorney to ascertain the existence of material that can be tested without…”
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8ד1-19-55 (1) The court determines pursuant to [R.C. 2953.75] that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing and that the parent sample of that biological…”
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7ד{¶ 13} In October 2007, the prosecutor filed a report, pursuant to R.C. 2953.75, which identified the following biological materials as still existing: (1) screwdriver bit recovered from in front of a cigarette machine; (2) fingernail clippings; (3) stain from the bathroom wall;…”
State v. Price, 845 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6דIn the proffered response, Price’s counsel argued that the state had a duty, under R.C. 2953.75, to perform a reasonable search for any biological evidence that may have been collected as part of the criminal investigation and that Price would have no way of knowing whether that…”
State v. Rawls, 2016 Ohio 7962 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5ד73 of the Revised Code, the court may accept the application only if all of the following apply: (1) The court determines pursuant to section 2953.75 of the Revised Code that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the…”
State v. Gavin, 2022 Ohio 3027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5ד” {¶24} Finally, R.C. 2953.75, which governs “comparison samples,” provides in section (A) as follows: If an eligible offender submits an application for DNA testing under section 2953.”
State v. Livingston, 2022 Ohio 3312 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9ד5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶10} A trial court has discretion “whether it will first determine whether the eligible inmate has demonstrated that the DNA testing would be outcome-determinative [under R.C. 2953.74(B)] or whether, [under R.”
State v. Warren, 2022 Ohio 4743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3דWe note, however, that under R.C. 2953.75(A), if an eligible offender applies for DNA testing, the prosecuting attorney must “use reasonable diligence to determine whether biological material was collected from the crime scene or victim of the offense for which the offender is…”
State v. Ayers, 923 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “The trial court denied the application, finding that Ayers failed to demonstrate that DNA testing would be “outcome determinative” as defined by R.C. 2953.71(L). This decision was reversed on appeal based upon the determination that the trial court’s explanation for the denial…”
State v. Buehler, 841 N.E.2d 831 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11ד{¶ 10} R.C. 2953.75 provides: If an eligible inmate submits an application for DNA testing under section 2953.”
State v. Mason, 2020 Ohio 6895 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2דBy Judgment Entry filed September 9, 2005, the trial court ordered the Ashland County Prosecuting Attorney to prepare a report pursuant to R.C. 2953.75 concerning the existence of DNA samples to be tested.”
State v. Bonnell, 2019 Ohio 5342 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6דThe jacket was sent to an agreed-upon independent testing agency, the DNA Diagnostic Center 1R.C. 2953.75 is titled “determinations by prosecuting attorney as to whether biological material was collected and whether parent sample still exists.”
State v. Buehler, 863 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2007). “In reaching its conclusion, the appellate court examined the language of R.C. 2953.75 and 2953.76, which provides that upon the filing of an application, the trial court “shall” order the prosecuting attorney to ascertain the existence of material that can be tested without…”
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “1-19-55 (1) The court determines pursuant to [R.C. 2953.75] that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing and that the parent sample of that biological…”
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶ 13} In October 2007, the prosecutor filed a report, pursuant to R.C. 2953.75, which identified the following biological materials as still existing: (1) screwdriver bit recovered from in front of a cigarette machine; (2) fingernail clippings; (3) stain from the bathroom wall;…”
State v. Rawls, 2016 Ohio 7962 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “73 of the Revised Code, the court may accept the application only if all of the following apply: (1) The court determines pursuant to section 2953.75 of the Revised Code that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the…”
State v. Price, 845 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “In the proffered response, Price’s counsel argued that the state had a duty, under R.C. 2953.75, to perform a reasonable search for any biological evidence that may have been collected as part of the criminal investigation and that Price would have no way of knowing whether that…”
State v. Rawls, 2016 Ohio 7962 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “73 of the Revised Code, the court may accept the application only if all of the following apply: (1) The court determines pursuant to section 2953.75 of the Revised Code that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the…”
State v. Warren, 2022 Ohio 4743 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “We note, however, that under R.C. 2953.75(A), if an eligible offender applies for DNA testing, the prosecuting attorney must “use reasonable diligence to determine whether biological material was collected from the crime scene or victim of the offense for which the offender is…”
State v. Bonnell, 2019 Ohio 5342 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “The jacket was sent to an agreed-upon independent testing agency, the DNA Diagnostic Center 1R.C. 2953.75 is titled “determinations by prosecuting attorney as to whether biological material was collected and whether parent sample still exists.”
State v. Emerick, 2011 Ohio 5543 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “{¶ 13} In October 2007, the prosecutor filed a report, pursuant to R.C. 2953.75, which identified the following biological materials as still existing: (1) screwdriver bit recovered from in front of a cigarette machine; (2) fingernail clippings; (3) stain from the bathroom wall;…”
State v. Ridley, 2020 Ohio 2779 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “1-19-55 (1) The court determines pursuant to [R.C. 2953.75] that biological material was collected from the crime scene or the victim of the offense for which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the DNA testing and that the parent sample of that biological…”
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.