State v. Noling (Slip Opinion), 101 N.E.3d 435

Background

Tyrone Noling was convicted of aggravated murder (death sentence) and pursued postconviction relief including two applications for DNA testing of a cigarette butt found at the crime scene; prior pretrial testing had excluded Noling and codefendants.
After this court's decision in Noling II, Noling amended his second application to request testing of additional items (shell casings and ring boxes) and submission of casings to NIBIN; the state objected citing contamination and statutory limits.
The trial court ordered BCI to test the cigarette butt and to evaluate the quantity/quality of biological material on the casings and ring boxes; BCI reported the cigarette DNA was from an "unknown male" and that the casings/boxes were contaminated and scientifically unsuitable for DNA testing.
Noling sought production of complete DNA test results (profiles, electropherograms, lab notes); the trial court provided a one‑page laboratory report but denied his broader disclosure request and dismissed his amended application based on BCI's contamination finding.
This court in Noling III held certain appeal provisions unconstitutional and converted Noling's appeal to an appeal of right; the remaining issues concern (1) scope of appellate review, (2) what constitutes "results of the testing" under R.C. 2953.81(C), (3) NIBIN request, (4) selection and actions of testing authority, and (5) BCI's contamination determination.

Issues

Issue	Noling's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Scope of appellate review (whether court may review trial-court decisions beyond three enumerated discretionary rulings)	Statute should permit appellate review when trial court failed to fulfill mandatory duties; R.C. 2953.72(A)(9) limits only review of manner, not of whether duty was performed.	Appellate review is limited by statute; many trial-court discretionary decisions (e.g., NIBIN request, selection prior to acceptance) are not appealable.	Court interpreted R.C. 2953.72(A)(8)/(A)(9) to allow appeals of the three enumerated discretionary decisions and of failures to perform mandatory duties; other discretionary claims outside those are not reviewable.
Disclosure scope — "results of the testing" under R.C. 2953.81(C)	"Results" should include all testing documentation (DNA profile, electropherograms, lab notes, quantification) produced by the lab.	"Results" need only convey outcome (e.g., unknown male); broader disclosure not required by statute.	"Results of the testing" means the DNA profile created for purposes of comparison with CODIS; the court must provide that profile but need not produce all underlying lab documents.
NIBIN submission of shell casings	Noling sought NIBIN comparison to identify missing murder weapon; relevant to alternative suspects.	No statutory authority compels court to order NIBIN; request was outside DNA-testing statute and discretionary.	Denied for review: no statutory procedure requiring NIBIN submission; discretionary and unappealable here.
Selection of testing authority and objection under R.C. 2953.78(B)	Court erred by directing BCI to examine items after defense objected and by not selecting Cellmark (defense-favored lab).	Court must have preliminary evaluation from a testing authority under R.C. 2953.76; selection of BCI for preliminary findings was permissible and not appealable at that stage.	Dismissed: trial court properly ordered preliminary BCI evaluation; objecting to testing authority after acceptance (rescission rule) is the remedy but selection for preliminary findings is within court authority and not an appealable discretionary decision here.
BCI's determination that casings/ring boxes were contaminated and unsuitable	Defense argued BCI relied on visual review and historical handling instead of "scientific testing" and thus erred in declaring items unsuitable.	BCI's visual/forensic-history-based evaluation met R.C. 2953.76; prior handling (superglue fuming, non-sterile tools) supported contamination finding.	Affirmed: testing authority may use visual and procedural-history analysis to determine contamination; trial court properly dismissed amended application for failure to meet statutory acceptance criteria.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (affirming convictions and sentence) (background on original appeal)
State v. Noling, 136 Ohio St.3d 163 (2013) (interpreting R.C. 2953.73(E)(1) and requiring trial courts to apply statutory definition of "definitive DNA test" and R.C. 2953.74 criteria on remand)
State v. Noling, 149 Ohio St.3d 327 (2016) (severing unconstitutional appeal provision and converting appeal to appeal of right)
State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114 (2007) (statutes vest wide latitude in judiciary on DNA-testing applications)
Wilson v. Lawrence, 150 Ohio St.3d 368 (2017) (interpretation that "shall" is mandatory)
Bernardini v. Conneaut Area City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 58 Ohio St.2d 1 (statutory construction: courts must give effect to words used)
In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes, 140 Ohio St.3d 346 (2014) (avoid reading statutory provisions as superfluous)