State v. Stonerock, 2012 Ohio 2290

Stonerock was convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a minor (14-year-old with developmental disabilities) in Highland County.
DNA testing showed Stonerock's DNA inside the victim's panties; the state disclosed pajama pants and panties as evidence and a LabCorp witness.
The state called Weiss (LabCorp) as a witness; the state later introduced LabCorp test results at trial.
During trial, the state failed to produce Stonerock's DNA swab; a bench conference occurred and the DNA swab was eventually brought to court.
Chief Hester, not listed as a witness, testified about chain of custody; the court allowed his testimony as a minimal chain-of-custody witness.
The jury found Stonerock guilty and the court sentenced him to five years in prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by admitting Chief Hester's testimony	Stonerock argues Crim.R. 16 disclosure violation earnt exclusion.	Stonerock contends lack of disclosure prejudiced defense.	No reversible error; no prejudice shown.
Whether the five-year sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law	State contends within statutory range and proper considerations.	Stonerock claims sentencing error and arbitrariness.	Sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

State v. Boyd, 2010-Ohio-1605 (4th Dist. No. 09CA14, 2010) (evidentiary discovery discretion standard)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987) (sufficiency of evidence and relevance balancing)
City of Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987) (discovery violations and sanctions)
State v. Joseph, 73 Ohio St.3d 450, 653 N.E.2d 285 (1995) (prejudice standard for discovery violations)
State v. Reed, 11th Dist. No. 2004-T-0117, 2005-Ohio-6901 (2010) (chain-of-custody witnesses and anticipated testimony)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23, 2008-Ohio-4912 (2008) (felony sentencing within statutory range; review standard)