State v. Marshall, 2024 Ohio 3262

James Marshall was convicted of murder after a jury trial involving the shooting death of Junis Sublett.
Eyewitnesses testified that the shooter fired from the front passenger side of a green car, where Marshall admitted to sitting, but Marshall maintained the driver was the shooter.
Marshall's conviction has been affirmed on appeal, and he has unsuccessfully challenged it in previous postconviction proceedings.
In May 2023, he applied for DNA testing on a shell casing found at the scene, arguing it could support his claim that he was not the shooter; his application was summarily denied without explanation.
Marshall filed a second, similar application for DNA testing, which was again summarily denied by the trial court.
Marshall appealed the denial, challenging the lack of explanation under R.C. 2953.73(D).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying the application for DNA testing without explanation	Trial court summarily denied the application; prosecution relies on similarity to prior applications	Marshall argues denial was improper without explanation, as required by statute	The court agreed with Marshall and held the trial court must state reasons for denial
Whether a successive application for DNA testing is barred when no prior DNA test was done	State argued the application should be dismissed as successive	Marshall noted the law permits successive applications absent prior definitive testing	The court held that successive applications are permissible if no prior DNA test occurred

State v. Marshall, 2008-Ohio-955 (affirmed conviction and context for postconviction litigation)
State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-1389 (first appellate district requires trial court to state reasons under R.C. 2953.73(D))
State v. Price, 2006-Ohio-180 (failure to state reasons precludes appellate review of denial of DNA testing)