State v. King
2017 Ohio 181
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1994 Evin King was convicted of murdering his girlfriend Crystal Hudson; semen was recovered from Hudson’s vagina and rectum and material was recovered from under her fingernails. King was excluded by DNA testing of the semen; fingernail material was initially untestable. King was sentenced to 15 years to life.
- Advanced DNA testing in 2009 produced a male DNA profile from the fingernail scrapings and showed that the semen profile and the fingernail profile were consistent with a single, unknown male who was not King.
- King filed successive postconviction motions (including a 2015 petition and a motion for DNA-related relief) arguing actual innocence, requesting access to DNA testing materials, a CODIS upload of the unknown profile, and an evidentiary hearing; the trial court denied relief in a November 30, 2015 entry.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying King access to DNA materials, refusing the requested CODIS upload, and denying an evidentiary hearing; the majority found the new DNA evidence, combined with autopsy evidence of rape and strangulation, warranted further proceedings.
- A concurring/dissenting opinion would have dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order (trial court failed to state reasons as required by R.C. 2953.73(D)) and, on the merits, would have affirmed denial of relief, finding prior DNA testing was definitive and that CODIS identification (even if obtained) would not be outcome-determinative given trial expert testimony about timing of semen deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying successive postconviction petition without evidentiary hearing | Court may deny successive petitions; evidence at best creates a battle of experts | New DNA results + expert affidavits demonstrate actual innocence and rebut state experts; hearing required | Reversed and remanded; hearing ordered (majority) |
| Whether new DNA/profile materials and testing results must be produced and made available | Prior testing conducted; materials need not be produced postconviction as discovery is discretionary | Entitled to DNA test results, underlying data, bench notes, and testing materials to assess innocence and request CODIS upload | Majority: grant access to DNA test results/materials and CODIS upload; remand. Dissent: deny — not required and prior production satisfied statutory obligations |
| Whether CODIS upload of the unknown profile was required | CODIS comparison/upload is discretionary and tied to an accepted DNA testing application; prior testing was definitive and the profile was already searched | CODIS upload is necessary to identify the unknown contributor and could exonerate King | Majority: order CODIS upload and proceed. Dissent: prior testing was definitive; CODIS would not be outcome-determinative, so not required |
| Whether prior DNA testing was “definitive” and whether outcome-determinative standard met | Prior testing definitively excluded King; 2009 results do not by themselves meet clear-and-convincing actual innocence standard | Prior testing + new expert interpretations + autopsy evidence together show strong probability no reasonable juror would convict | Majority: evidence sufficient to reopen/hold hearing under statutes; remand. Dissent: prior testing definitive, res judicata bars successive claims, and outcome-determinative standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gondor, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion framework for postconviction relief)
- State v. Prade, 930 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio 2010) (prior DNA testing may be non-definitive when new methods can reveal previously undetectable perpetrator material)
- State v. Noling, 992 N.E.2d 1095 (Ohio 2013) (statutory standard for entitlement to further DNA testing when technological advances could discover new biological material)
- State v. Ayers, 923 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio App. 2009) (favoring DNA testing and policy emphasis on exonerating the innocent)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)