State v. Emerson, 949 N.E.2d 538

Appellant Dajuan Emerson challenges his convictions for aggravated murder and tampering with evidence, raising five assignments of error.
DNA profile from a doorknob at Marnie Macon’s home was entered into CODIS and matched Emerson’s profile from a prior 2005 DNA sample.
Officers found Macon stabbed and her body and crime scene showing cleaning efforts; weapon and scene were sanitized.
Emerson was questioned after the DNA match; he initially denied visiting the home and later admitted being there after DNA evidence was disclosed; he refused to sign a statement.
He was indicted for aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence; suppression motions were denied; trial occurred in October 2009 resulting in convictions on aggravated murder and tampering, with burglary dismissed; aggregate sentence 25 to life plus a concurrent sentence of 1 year.
Appellant timely appealed challenging DNA retention, suppression of statements, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, Miranda waiver, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retention of DNA records and standing	DNA profile from acquitted case retained; argued suppression under statutes.	Statutes do not authorize retention of acquitted individuals’ records; should be suppressed.	Appellant lacks standing; DNA records properly maintained; no suppression required.
Miranda waiver and voluntariness	Waiver not valid; statements should have been suppressed.	Waiver was voluntary and knowingly made; Miranda warnings were given.	Court found valid waiver and admissible statements.
Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence	Guilty verdicts were based on insufficient/compromised evidence.	Evidence was sufficient and Weight of the evidence supported the verdicts.	Evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence; verdicts upheld.
Jury instructions on lesser included offense	Trial court should have instructed on a lesser included offense.	No request for lesser included offense; no instruction required.	No error; defense waived; no plain error found.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to challenge the DNA warrant/affidavit and other aspects prejudicing outcome.	No prejudice; motion would not have changed the result.	No ineffective-assistance shown; no prejudice established.

State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 1998) (prior calculation and design factors in aggravated murder)
State v. Jenkins, 48 Ohio App.2d 99 (Ohio App. 1976) (factors for prior calculation and design in homicide)
State v. Channer, 115 Ohio St. 350 (1936) (historical framework for prior calculation and design)
State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477 (Ohio App. 2007) (affidavit and probable cause considerations in search warrants)
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio App. 1983) (proper test for manifest weight of the evidence)
Smith v. State, 744 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2001) (DNA database standing; property interest in DNA profile)