2024 Ohio 6025
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Daverrick Lash was convicted in 2016 of aggravated murder and related offenses for a fatal shooting at Club Fly High and sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 31 years.
- The conviction was based significantly on witness identifications and DNA evidence from spit collected near the crime scene, although witness testimonies were inconsistent and DNA evidence had limitations.
- Lash’s first appeal (Lash I) challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, eyewitness reliability, and raised due process and fair trial issues; all assignments of error were overruled.
- In 2021, Lash filed a post-conviction motion for DNA testing, arguing that new testing could affect the trial’s outcome by possibly excluding him or identifying another DNA contributor from the firearm magazine or shell casings.
- The trial court denied Lash's motion for DNA testing in 2024 without providing an explanation beyond stating results would not be "outcome determinative" or "probative."
- Lash appealed this denial, leading to the present decision by the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Lash’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the DNA testing motion without explanation | Lash argued a reasonable factfinder might not have convicted him if DNA excluded him from firearms evidence | State supported the trial court’s summary denial, asserting no outcome determinative potential | The appellate court held it was error to deny without reasons and remanded for proper analysis |
| Whether substantive analysis for 'outcome determinative' was required for DNA testing denial | Lash argued that the court must explain how it concluded testing would not affect the outcome | State did not provide an analysis justifying summary denial | Held that courts must explain their rationale under R.C. 2953.73(D) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conner, 2020-Ohio-4310 (8th Dist.) (holding that denial of DNA testing requires a substantive explanation for why testing would not be outcome determinative)
- State v. Rawls, 2016-Ohio-7962 (8th Dist.) (remanding when the trial court failed to provide reasons for denying DNA testing)
- State v. Richard, 2013-Ohio-3918 (8th Dist.) (holding trial court must specify reasons for finding DNA testing not outcome determinative)
- State v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-2369 (8th Dist.) (requiring trial courts to engage in analysis for DNA testing applications)