2011 Ohio 2182
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2006, multiple aggravated robberies occurred in northwest Montgomery County; witnesses described the robber and the silver handgun.
- The getaway car was a black older-model Buick Regal; a glove, brown shirt, ski mask, handgun, and cash were found in the car.
- A store clerk identified Broadnax as the robber, leading to a photo array where three prior victims identified him.
- Broadnax pled no contest to aggravated robbery and some gun specifications; other charges were dismissed and he was sentenced to 13 years.
- In 2010, Broadnax filed an application for post-conviction DNA testing of the ski mask; the trial court denied it; he appealed.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding no reversible error in the decision to deny post-conviction DNA testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process and disclosure of DNA testing results | Broadnax alleges the state failed to disclose DNA testing on the ski mask. | Broadnax contends lack of disclosure affected plea strategy and conviction. | Assignment rejected; issue not properly before court; even if, disclosure occurred to counsel. |
| Eligibility and impact of DNA testing under post-conviction statutes | Broadnax argues post-conviction testing should be allowed and potentially outcome determinative. | State argues testing would not be outcome determinative given eyewitness identifications. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusive DNA result would not change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nalls, 2007-Ohio-1676 (Ohio App. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in post-conviction DNA testing)
- State v. Boles, 2010-Ohio-278 (Ohio App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion framework for DNA testing decisions)
- State v. Sterling, 113 Ohio St.3d 255 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (severed unconstitutional D; allowed court to assess testing discretion)
- State v. Cordell, 2011-Ohio-1735 (Ohio App. 2011) (eligibility under former R.C. 2953.82 for guilty/no contest pleas)
- State v. McCall, 2006-Ohio-225 (Ohio App. 2006) (exclusive DNA results not outcome determinative when eyewitnesses suffice)
- State v. Hatton, 2006-Ohio-5121 (Ohio App. 2006) (discussion of outcome-determinative standard for DNA evidence)
- State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (recognizes threshold 'outcome determinative' analysis for DNA testing)