State v. Hayden
2012 Ohio 6183
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Hayden was convicted of rape in 1990; trial evidence centered on victim testimony and DNA from vaginal samples.
- 1998 PCR DNA testing showed Hayden could not be excluded from the sperm fraction but excluded from the non-sperm fraction.
- Post-conviction relief petitions and related DNA-testing litigation spanned 1997–2010, with testing evolving over time.
- The 1998 test produced an inclusion result; subsequent statutes (2003 SB 11, 2004–2010 amendments) allowed new testing under conditions.
- In 2011 Hayden moved for discovery of BCI DNA evidence and for testing under 2953.74(E) and SB 77; requests were denied.
- The trial court held that Hayden’s filings were res judicata and failed to use proper statutory forms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of new DNA testing was proper | Hayden relies on Skinner to obtain testing; argues form/Res Judicata exceptions apply. | Denial proper due to missing statutory form and res judicata. | Denial affirmed; proper given form and res judicata limits. |
| Whether res judicata bar prevented relief | Emerick allows successive testing if criteria met; not barred by res judicata. | Prior litigations preclude further testing absent new statutory criteria. | Res judicata not absolute; trial court could review under statute, but here criteria not met. |
| Identity issue and outcome-determinative standard under 2953.74(C) | Identity at issue; exclusion could be outcome determinative. | Identity not at issue; exclusion not outcome determinative. | Identity not shown to be outcome determinative; tests not retried. |
| Proper application of Skinner and Osborne limitations on federal avenues | Skinner allows §1983 pathway for DNA testing claims. | Osborne limits federal avenues; Skinner not expanding state-titled relief. | Skinner not controlling; state procedure governs—no relief here. |
| Whether to order further DNA testing under 2953.74(E) | Testing should compare unidentified DNA to CODIS per SB 77. | Court did not accept application; no proper triggering of testing. | Court did not abuse discretion; testing not ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2011) (post-conviction DNA testing; §1983 pathways)
- State v. Emerick, 2011-Ohio-5543 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24215) (permits successive DNA testing under amended statutes)
- State v. Hayden, 2010-Ohio-3908 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23620) (res judicata and DNA testing jurisprudence in Hayden line)
- State v. Hayden, 2007-Ohio-5572 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21764) (exclusion not outcome determinative under prior standard)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata principles in Ohio)