State v. Prade, 9 N.E.3d 1072

In November 1997, Dr. Margo Prade was murdered in the back parking lot of her medical office; bite mark evidence and DNA testing were central to the case.
Douglas Prade, Margo’s ex-husband and a police captain, was indicted in 1998 and convicted of aggravated murder based on trial evidence including bite-mark testimony and eyewitness identifications.
Post-conviction DNA testing requests were pursued by Prade, leading to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Prade, which remanded for analysis under R.C. 2953.74 and related provisions to assess outcome-determinative DNA testing.
On remand, additional DNA testing (DDC, BCI, and SERI) produced mixed, low-level male DNA results, with Prade excluded as a contributor to the bite-mark DNA, though results were inconclusive in pinpointing the biter.
The trial court granted Prade’s petition for post-conviction relief and discharge, finding actual innocence based on the new DNA evidence and related post-conviction testimony.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion and that discharge under R.C. 2953.23(A)(2) was not supported by clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discharge was proper under R.C. 2953.23(A)(2).	State contends the post-conviction court abused its discretion by discharging Prade despite the DNA results and trial record.	Prade argues the new DNA evidence, when viewed with all admissible evidence, shows actual innocence and warrants discharge.	Discharge was improper; trial court abused discretion; reverse and remand.

State v. Prade, 126 Ohio St.3d 27 (2010-Ohio-1842) (remanded for analysis of outcome-determinative DNA testing)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (standard of proof between preponderance and beyond reasonable doubt)
Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006-Ohio-6679) (abuse-of-discretion standard for PCR petitions)