State v. Clemmons, 2011 Ohio 4474

In 2007, Clemmons was convicted by a jury of raping a child under ten and sentenced to life in prison.
On August 24, 2010, Clemmons petitioned for postconviction DNA testing, claiming the victim had been treated for an STD and that the green discharge in the underwear would prove his innocence.
The trial court dismissed the collateral arguments and limited its analysis to the DNA-testing application, noting no DNA from the perpetrator was found in the underwear and the incident occurred weeks before the victim's hospital exam.
The court denied the DNA-testing petition on November 8, 2010, prompting Clemmons to appeal.
R.C. 2953.72(C) governs eligibility for DNA testing, requiring, among other things, that a sexually oriented offense with specific duties exist and that certain material evidence and testing conditions are met.
The court found Clemmons met initial criteria but failed to show that collecting and testing biological material would be outcome determinative under R.C. 2953.74, leading to the denial being within the trial court’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying postconviction DNA testing	Clemmons contends the denial violated his rights and misapplied statutory criteria.	Court acted within discretion under R.C. 2953.74 and did not compel testing where results would not be outcome determinative.	No abuse; denial affirmed.

State v. Emerick, 170 Ohio App.3d 647 (2007-Ohio-1334) (establishes testing criteria and framework)
State v. Hayden, 2005-Ohio-4025 (Montgomery App. No. 20747) (case guiding eligibility and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114 (2007-Ohio-1246) (defines 'outcome determinative' standard)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)