State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)
119 N.E.3d 1285
Ohio2018Background
- In 1987 Melvin Bonnell was identified by two eyewitnesses as the shooter in the murder of Robert Bunner, was charged with aggravated murder (capital), convicted, and sentenced to death. The prosecution linked Bonnell by an observed car chase and recovery of a .25 caliber pistol along the chase route.
- Bonnell pursued multiple collateral attacks; postconviction and federal habeas courts previously rejected his Brady and other claims. The Ohio Supreme Court found the trial evidence "overwhelming."
- In 2004 Bonnell sought DNA testing of multiple items (vomit, blood from his vehicle, hair from a green pillow, gunshot-residue bags, and swabs/slides from scene and his person). The trial court denied the first application, in part because no parent samples were identified.
- After Ohio enacted a new DNA-testing statute, Bonnell filed a second application in 2008; the state located Bonnell’s jacket and agreed to testing. 2009 testing excluded Bonnell as a contributor for some jacket samples but matched Bunner’s profile on others.
- Bonnell later sought testing of additional items. The prosecutor conducted an extensive search and reported most original biological material (parent samples) was not located or had been signed out and not returned; the medical examiner retained a few autopsy slides, some swabs, and the jacket.
- The trial court denied the second application because (1) no parent samples for the other requested items existed and the prosecutor’s search satisfied statutory duties, and (2) any additional DNA results would not be outcome determinative given the eyewitness and forensic case against Bonnell. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review adequacy of prosecutor’s search for biological material under R.C. 2953.73–.76 | Bonnell: due-process right to challenge adequacy of state’s search in trial court and on appeal | State: statutory scheme limits review to whether DNA testing should be granted; adequacy-of-search determinations by trial court are not reviewable | Court: lacks jurisdiction to review adequacy of the state’s search under the statute; cannot entertain this claim |
| Whether requested DNA testing would be outcome determinative | Bonnell: negative or alternative matches (e.g., testing of vomit, hair, car, hands, pillow) could exonerate him or point to another shooter | State: even excluding Bonnell on tests would not overcome eyewitness ID, chase, weapon recovery, and other evidence; many parent samples do not exist | Court: Bonnell failed to show any requested testing would be outcome determinative; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- State v. Bonnell, 61 Ohio St.3d 179 (summarizing trial facts and affirming conviction and death sentence)
- Bonnell v. Mitchel, 301 F.Supp.2d 698 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (federal habeas review of related postconviction claims)