State v. Emerick
2011 Ohio 5543
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Emerick convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated murder with death specifications; DNA testing sought years later under post-conviction statutes.
- Trial evidence included fingerprint and tool-mark connections, but no conclusive DNA linking Emerick to the murders.
- Emerick sought post-conviction DNA testing in 2005; the trial court denied it as not outcome determinative and because testing was available at trial.
- This court held in Emerick II that Y-STR testing was not available at trial and allowed testing under the post-conviction scheme; testing already conducted yielded incomplete results.
- In 2009 Emerick sought further testing of additional items (including the devil letter); the trial court denied, and this appeal followed with questions on res judicata and the applicable outcome determinative standard.
- The appellate court held that res judicata did not bar the second application and that части of the denial should be reconsidered under the 2006 statutory changes and updated standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars successive DNA testing requests. | Emerick argues res judicata does not apply per Ayers, given newer standards. | State contends res judicata bars under the 2009 criteria. | Res judicata does not bar the successive request. |
| Whether 2953.74(B)(1) bars testing since DNA was generally available at trial. | Emerick asserts testing was eligible because technology evolved. | State argues rule bars due to availability at trial. | The court sustains the first assignment; testing permitted by statute. |
| Whether the 2006 amendments lowered the outcome determinative standard. | Emerick asserts the lower standard applies to his second application. | State argues the standard should be applied as of trial. | The 2006 standard applies; must consider all admissible evidence.” |
| Whether the devil letter and other items are eligible biological materials. | Emerick seeks testing of the devil letter; argues material contains DNA. | State contends not all items are biological material or crime-scene related. | Devil letter and envelope are eligible; testing may be outcome determinative. |
| Whether the State must provide a DNA-evidence report under 2953.75. | Emerick sought inventory/report of all materials. | State argued no mandatory list if not outcome determinative. | Trial court erred in not ordering a DNA-evidence report. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Emerick, 170 Ohio App.3d 647 (2007-Ohio-1334) (Y-STR access; post-conviction testing under SB 262; developed standards)
- Ayers, 185 Ohio App.3d 168 (2009-Ohio-6096) (Res judicata not bar where standards changed and testing could be outcome determinative)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata principles in civil/criminal contexts)
- State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114 (2007-Ohio-1246) (DNA testing procedures; court discretion in ordering testing)
- State v. Reynolds, 186 Ohio App.3d 1 (2009-Ohio-5532) (absence/presence of DNA affecting outcome probability)