State v. Roberts
983 N.E.2d 334
Ohio2012Background
- Roberts convicted in 1997 for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery; life without parole.
- SB 77 enacted 2010, creating a uniform system for preserving biological evidence.
- R.C. 2933.82 imposes duties on governmental evidence-retention entities to preserve and catalog DNA-related evidence.
- Roberts moved in 2010 to preserve evidence for possible touch DNA analysis; trial court denied.
- Court of Appeals held R.C. 2933.82 not retroactive and prospective; evidence before enactment not covered.
- Supreme Court held the statute is not retroactive and applies to evidence in possession as of the statute’s effective date (July 6, 2010).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2933.82 applies to pre-enactment possession | Roberts—statute targets possession at enactment. | State—not retroactive; pre-enactment possession not covered. | Not retroactive; applies to possession as of effective date. |
| Whether retroactivity analysis governs this case | Not necessary; language shows possession at enactment. | Retroactivity analysis controls result. | Retroactivity analysis not applicable; statute applies to existing possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoenrade v. Tracy, 74 Ohio St.3d 200 (Ohio 1996) (retroactivity not triggered by antecedent facts)
- United Eng. & Foundry Co. v. Bowers, 171 Ohio St. 279 (Ohio 1960) (antecedent facts do not make statute retroactive)
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101 (Ohio 1973) (interpretation based on statutory language and intent)