State v. Scott, 2020 Ohio 5302

In 1992 a Butler County jury convicted Guy Billy Lee Scott of rape, murder, and assault of Lesa Buckley; her body was found in Cedar Lake in July 1990.
Investigative and trial evidence included eyewitness testimony (notably Tony Young) placing Scott alone with Buckley near the lake, multiple unprompted inculpatory statements by Scott to several witnesses, Scott returning to the party wet, and other circumstantial facts (identifying the body, attempting to discard items).
A rape kit and fingernail scrapings were collected at autopsy but were never DNA tested.
In April 2019 Scott petitioned for postconviction DNA testing, arguing that DNA excluding him would be outcome determinative under R.C. 2953.74 because the state’s case relied on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence and because a key witness (Young) later recanted.
The trial court denied the petition, concluding that an exclusion would not create a strong probability that no reasonable juror would have convicted given the quantity and quality of eyewitness and circumstantial evidence; the court also found Young’s recantations not credible.
Scott appealed, raising (1) that a DNA exclusion would be outcome determinative and (2) that the trial court failed to make required statutory findings; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether postconviction DNA testing should be ordered because a DNA exclusion would be outcome determinative	Scott: DNA testing of the rape kit/fingernail scrapings might exclude him and, analyzed with the record and recantations, would likely lead no reasonable juror to convict	State: Even if DNA excluded Scott, the conviction rests on multiple eyewitnesss, inculpatory statements, and strong circumstantial evidence, so exclusion would not create the required strong probability of a different outcome	Denied. Court: no abuse of discretion; exclusion would not be outcome determinative given the breadth of reliable evidence against Scott
Whether the trial court failed to make required findings under R.C. 2953.74 when denying the DNA petition	Scott: Court did not expressly state consideration of defense theories and post-trial evidence (e.g., Young recantations) as required	State: Court reviewed written submissions and set forth reasons tied to statutory criteria; full, detailed findings are not required beyond explaining the reasons for rejection	Denied. Court: the written decision sufficiently explained reasons and reflects consideration of arguments; statutory requirement satisfied

State v. Gragg, 173 Ohio App.3d 270 (2007) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
State v. Wilkins, 163 Ohio App.3d 576 (2005) (discusses when a narrow "margin of evidence" renders a DNA exclusion outcome determinative)