Scott v. Houk, 127 Ohio St. 3d 317

Judge certified a state-law question about whether Ohio’s lethal-injection protocol can be challenged under Baze or Ohio law.
Ohio death-row defendant Scott seeks state relief or a forum to litigate pain-and-suffering concerns in execution.
Ohio provides direct appeal, postconviction relief, state habeas, and App.R. 26(B) reopenings; no specific Ohio-law action for lethal-injection challenges exists.
Majority holds no state postconviction or state-law path exists to review the lethal-injection protocol under Baze or Ohio law.
Dissent argues declaratory judgment or mandamus could provide a forum; concurs disagree with majority’s abstention.
Consequently, the certified question is answered in the negative; federal avenues remain available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there a state postconviction or other state-law avenue to litigate the lethal-injection protocol?	Scott contends there is a state forum or action to challenge the protocol.	State law provides no such postconviction or direct action; federal avenues prevail.	There is no state postconviction or other state-law avenue.

State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994) (recognizes adequate review and finality principles in death-penalty cases)
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (Supreme Court, 2008) (permits some pain but requires no better available alternatives; avoids creating 'best practices' litigation)
Cooey v. Strickland, 604 F.3d 939 (6th Cir., 2010) ( Sixth Circuit holds current Ohio protocol not markedly more painful than constitutional standards)
Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993) (recognizes Ohio Constitution may provide greater protections than federal)
State v. Carter, 89 Ohio St.3d 593 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000) (early method-of-execution challenges under Ohio/Eighth Amendment standards)
State v. Ketterer, 864 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007) (discusses postconviction reopenings and review mechanisms)