Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Buehler

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 27, 2005No. 85796Published

1DissentMichael J. Corrigan, Judge

{¶ 21} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remand Buehler’s application for DNA testing. I believe that the majority’s very narrow reading of the DNA testing statutes fails to consider the impact of other statutory provisions that obviate the need for the state to determine whether DNA exists as a predicate for further proceedings by the court.

{¶ 22} While I agree that R.C. 2953.75 requires the prosecuting attorney to determine whether biological material exists upon the application for DNA testing, that section cannot be read in isolation from other aspects of the DNA…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. WilkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. State v. Hightower, Unpublished Decision (7-28-2005)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API