2015 Ohio 3341
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1997 Brent Upton was convicted of first-degree murder for the strangulation death of Sonja Holivay; eyewitness Tora Williams testified seeing Upton and another enter the victim’s apartment and observed an altercation. Upton was sentenced to 15 years to life.
- Physical evidence included a knife (two fingerprints, one non-matching), multiple blood-stained items (some matching the victim; some clothing with blood consistent with Upton), a comforter with inconclusive blood results but sperm likely from Upton and epithelial cells from a female not identified as Holivay.
- At trial DNA testing produced inconclusive results for several items and some tests identified only the victim’s blood; Upton’s direct appeal was unsuccessful.
- In 2014 Upton applied for postconviction DNA testing under Ohio’s R.C. 2953.72–.74, arguing modern methods could isolate additional profiles from previously inconclusive or single-source results and attached expert affidavits and a recantation-related affidavit concerning the eyewitness.
- The trial court summarily denied the application, finding Upton failed to meet statutory prerequisites; Upton appealed the denial to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying postconviction DNA testing under R.C. 2953.72–.74 | State: Upton did not meet statutory prerequisites for testing | Upton: advances in DNA technology and lack of any prior definitive tests mean new testing could be outcome-determinative and should be allowed | Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Upton failed to supply a sufficient trial record to show new testing would be outcome-determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ayers, 185 Ohio App.3d 168 (Ohio App. 2009) (advances in DNA and lack of profile at trial can weigh in favor of testing)
- State v. Prade, 126 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 2010) (requirement that DNA exclusion be outcome-determinative when considered with all admissible evidence)
- State v. Emerick, 170 Ohio App.3d 647 (Ohio App. 2007) (statutory prerequisites for postconviction DNA testing explained)