Title: State v. Roberts

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State v. Roberts, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5684.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-5684 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ROBERTS, APPELLANT. 
 [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State v. Roberts, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5684.] 
 (No. 2011-1882—Submitted September 25, 2011—Decided December 6, 2012.)  
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County, No. 10CA000047, 
2011-Ohio-4969. 
______________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The obligation to preserve and catalog criminal offense-related biological 
evidence imposed upon certain government entities by R.C. 2933.82 
applies to evidence in the possession of those entities at the time of the 
statute’s effective date.   
______________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we decide whether the obligation to preserve and 
catalog criminal-offense-related biological evidence imposed upon certain 
government entities by R.C. 2933.82 applies to evidence in the possession of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
those entities at the time of the statute’s effective date.  We hold that R.C. 
2933.82 is not retroactive, but that it does apply to biological evidence in the 
possession of governmental evidence-retention entities at the time of its effective 
date.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to 
the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In September 1997, a jury found appellant, Clarence D. Roberts, 
guilty of aggravated murder, with a specification of aggravating circumstances, 
and aggravated robbery in connection with the death of Leo Stinnett.  Following 
the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Roberts to life imprisonment 
without parole.  Roberts’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal.  See 
State v. Roberts, 5th Dist. No. 97CA29 (November 24, 1998). 
{¶ 3} On September 30, 2010, Roberts filed a pro se motion in the trial 
court to order the preservation and listing of evidence.  Roberts sought 
preservation of the physical evidence and a certified list of all evidence so that he 
could retain an expert to conduct “touch DNA” analysis.  Roberts argued that 
because the prosecution’s theory had relied on the testimony of a John LaFollett, 
he wanted an expert to perform touch DNA analysis on the evidence, “specifically 
including the pocket of the victim which was turned out when the wallet was 
taken, to determine whether John LaFollett’s DNA can be found.” 
{¶ 4} On November 30, 2010, the trial court denied Roberts’s motion, 
finding that “even if John LaFollett’s DNA could be found on the clothing of the 
victim, specifically the pocket, the evidence would not disclose a strong 
probability that it would change the result if a new trial would be granted and 
merely would impeach and contradict the former evidence.” 
{¶ 5} Roberts appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  In his 
single assignment of error, he argued that the trial court erred as a matter of law in 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
denying his motion to order the preservation and listing of evidence, in violation 
of R.C. 2933.82.  Roberts, 2011-Ohio-4969, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} R.C. 2933.82 provides: 
 
(B)(2) This section applies to evidence likely to contain 
biological material that was in the possession of any governmental 
evidence-retention entity during the investigation and prosecution 
of a criminal case * * *. 
(3) A governmental evidence-retention entity that possesses 
biological evidence shall retain the biological evidence in the 
amount and manner sufficient to develop a DNA profile from the 
biological material contained in or included on the evidence. 
(4) Upon written request by the defendant in a criminal 
case or the alleged delinquent child in a delinquent child case 
involving a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03, a 
violation of section 2903.04 or 2903.06 that is a felony of the first 
or second degree, a violation of section 2907.02 or 2907.03 or of 
division (A)(4) or (B) of section 2907.05 of the Revised Code, or 
an attempt to commit a violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised 
Code, a governmental evidence-retention entity that possesses 
biological evidence shall prepare an inventory of the biological 
evidence that has been preserved in connection with the 
defendant’s criminal case or the alleged delinquent child’s 
delinquent child case. 
(5) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(7) of this 
section, a governmental evidence-retention entity that possesses 
biological evidence that includes biological material may destroy 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
the evidence before the expiration of the applicable period of time 
specified in division (B)(1) of this section * * * : 
* * * 
(7) A governmental evidence-retention entity that possesses 
biological evidence that includes biological material may destroy 
the evidence five years after a person pleads guilty or no contest to 
a violation of section 2903.01, 2903.02, or 2903.03, a violation of 
2903.04 or 2903.06 that is a felony of the first or second degree, a 
violation of section 2907.02, 2907.03, division (A)(4) or (B) of 
section 2907.05, or an attempt to commit a violation of section 
2907.02 of the Revised Code and all appeals have been exhausted 
unless, upon a motion to the court by the person who pleaded 
guilty or no contest or the person’s attorney and notice to those 
persons described in division (B)(5)(b) of this section requesting 
that the evidence not be destroyed, the court finds good cause as to 
why that evidence must be retained. 
* * * 
(C)(1) The preservation of biological evidence task force 
established within the bureau of criminal identification and 
investigation under section 109.561 [109.56.1] of the Revised 
Code shall establish a system regarding the proper preservation of 
biological evidence in this state. In establishing the system, the 
task 
force 
shall 
do 
all 
of 
the 
following: 
 
(a) Devise standards regarding the proper collection, 
retention, and cataloguing of biological evidence for ongoing 
investigations and prosecutions; 
(b) Recommend practices, protocols, models, and resources 
for the cataloging and accessibility of preserved biological 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
evidence already in the possession of governmental evidence-
retention entities. 
 
{¶ 7} In overruling Roberts’s assignment of error, the appellate court 
maintained that because R.C. 2933.82 became effective on July 6, 2010, and 
Roberts was convicted in 1997, the statute would have to be applied 
retrospectively if it were to apply at all in this case.  Roberts, 2011-Ohio-4969, ¶ 
13.  However, a statute is retrospective only if it contains an express, clear 
provision for retroactive application, and the appellate court noted that there was 
no such provision in R.C. 2933.82.  Id. at ¶ 13.   
{¶ 8} The court of appeals rejected Roberts’s argument that the use of 
the verb “was” in R.C. 2933.82(B)(2) implied retroactive application.  Id. at ¶ 14.  
The Fifth District stated that because the statute sets forth requirements involving 
the preservation of evidence after conviction, the “was” refers to evidence in 
possession of any governmental evidence-retention entity during the investigation 
and prosecution of a criminal case after July 6, 2010.   Id. at ¶ 14.  Finally, it 
reasoned that the state could not do what it did not know it had to do, that is, meet 
the standards outlined in R.C. 2933.82 in cases that arose prior to its effective 
date.  Id. at ¶ 14.   
{¶ 9} Furthermore, the court of appeals stated that the statute created 
new rights and imposed new duties upon the state to preserve biological evidence 
or to notify certain individuals in the event the evidence was to be destroyed.  Id. 
at ¶ 15.  For instance, a task force established within the state Bureau of Criminal 
Identification and Investigation, see R.C. 109.561, was directed to establish a 
system for the proper preservation of biological evidence in Ohio.  In establishing 
that system, the task force was directed to (1) “[d]evise standards regarding the 
proper collection, retention, and cataloguing of biological evidence for ongoing 
investigations and prosecutions” and (2) “[r]ecommend practices, protocols, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
models, and resources for the cataloguing and accessibility of preserved 
biological evidence already in the possession of governmental evidence-retention 
entities.”  R.C. 2933.382(C)(1)(a) and (b). 
{¶ 10} Because the victim’s clothing was not preserved pursuant to the 
practices and protocols under the new task force, the court of appeals held that 
Roberts could not benefit from retrospective application of the statute.  Id. at ¶ 18.  
Therefore, the court of appeals held that the provisions of R.C. 2933.82 were to be 
applied prospectively only, id. at ¶ 19, and affirmed the judgment of the trial 
court. Id. at ¶ 21. 
{¶ 11} We granted Roberts discretionary review, 131 Ohio St.3d 1437, 
2012-Ohio-331, 960 N.E.2d 986, and agreed to determine whether R.C. 2933.82 
applies to biological evidence already in the possession of governmental 
evidence-retention entities at the time of the statute’s effective date of July 6, 
2010. 
ANALYSIS 
Historical Context of R.C. 2933.82 
{¶ 12} “[W]e must construe [statutes] in a manner that carries out the 
intent of the General Assembly.”  Sheet Metal Workers’ Internatl. Assn., Local 
Union No. 33 v. Gene’s Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 122 
Ohio St.3d 248, 2009-Ohio-2747, 910 N.E.2d 444, ¶ 29, citing Harris v. Van 
Hoose, 49 Ohio St.3d 24, 26, 550 N.E.2d 461 (1990).  In order to determine 
legislative intent, “[w]e look to the language of the statute, the circumstances 
under which the statute was enacted, legislative history, and the consequences of a 
particular construction.”  Id.  See R.C. 1.49; Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. 
Verizon Wireless, 113 Ohio St.3d 394, 2007-Ohio-2203, 865 N.E.2d 1275, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 13} R.C. 2933.82 was enacted as a product of the “Innocence 
Movement,” which “refers to a related set of activities by lawyers, cognitive and 
social psychologists, other social scientists, legal scholars, government personnel, 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
journalists, documentarians, freelance writers, and citizen-activists who, since the 
mid-1990s, have worked to free innocent prisoners and rectify perceived causes of 
miscarriages of justice in the United States.”  Zalman, An Integrated Justice 
Model of Wrongful Convictions, 74 Alb.L.Rev. 1465, 1468 (2011). 
{¶ 14} One mission of the movement was to create innocence projects at 
law schools “to investigate claims of wrongful convictions, especially in cases 
where DNA testing is not possible but there are serious doubts about the 
reliability of the conviction.”  Id. at 1497.  The innocence projects often rely on 
modern technology and scientific advancements, considering that one of the best 
tools modern science has to offer the criminal-justice system is the ability to 
conclusively and correctly identify a particular individual by the source of DNA 
found at a crime scene.  The innocence projects not only shed light on the fact that 
biological evidence and DNA are critical components of the criminal-justice 
system, because they are often the link to solving crimes, they also highlight the 
need for the preservation and storage of the DNA and biological evidence as a 
way to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals. 
{¶ 15} As a result of the movement, several law schools created 
innocence projects, including the Innocence Project affiliated with Benjamin N. 
Cardozo School of Law in 1992 and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at 
Northwestern Law School in 1998.  Id. at 1489, 1518-1519.  By 2000, there were 
more than 50 innocence projects throughout the country.  Id. at 1499.  Moreover, 
“[t]he average number of annual DNA exonerations * * * grew from 6 per year 
between 1989 and 1999, to 18.1 per year from 2000 to 2009.”  Id., citing Know 
the Cases: Browse Profiles, Innocence Project, http://www.innocenceproject.org 
/know/Browse-Profiles.php.  “Reforms, such as legislation establishing post-
appeal jurisdiction for DNA testing,” were also taking place throughout the 
country.  Id., citing Rachel Steinback, Comment, The Fight for Post-Conviction 
DNA Testing Is Not Yet Over: An Analysis of the Eight Remaining “Holdout 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
States” and Suggestions for Strategies to Bring Vital Relief to the Wrongfully 
Convicted, 98 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 329, 336 (2007). 
{¶ 16} By 2003, over 140 wrongfully convicted individuals across the 
nation had been exonerated by reexamining DNA evidence. Gross, Jacoby, 
Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 
2003, 95 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 523, 524 (2005). 
{¶ 17} That same year, the Ohio Innocence Project was founded at the 
University of Cincinnati College of Law.  Ohio Innocence Project, 
http://law.uc.edu/o-i-p (accessed November 27, 2012); Godsey, False Justice and 
the “True” Prosecutor: A Memoir, Tribute, and Commentary, 9 Ohio 
St.J.Crim.L. 789, 790 (2012).  Also, the General Assembly passed an act to 
“establish a mechanism and procedures for the DNA testing of certain inmates 
serving a prison term for a felony or under a sentence of death.”  Title, Sub.S.B. 
No. 11, 150 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6498, 6498. 
{¶ 18} Despite these changes, there were no statewide procedures for 
preserving or storing biological evidence, resulting in inconsistent storage 
techniques by governmental entities throughout the state.  The lack of consistency 
in preserving and storing evidence allowed evidence to be compromised, lost, or 
prematurely destroyed.   
{¶ 19} Having recognized that proper preservation promotes justice and 
prevents injustice and that the lack of guidelines for the preservation and storage 
of evidence could lead to grave results, on March 24, 2010, the General Assembly 
enacted R.C. 2933.82, 2010 Sub.S.B. No. 77 (“S.B. 77”).  S.B. 77 rectified the 
inconsistencies for preserving and storing biological evidence by establishing a 
task force charged with creating a uniform system and standards.  At the time it 
was enacted, S.B. 77 was heralded as a national model for reforms to protect the 
innocent from wrongful conviction by imposing a duty upon law-enforcement 
agencies to store and maintain biological evidence.  Innocence Project, March 16, 
January Term, 2012 
 
9
2010 
press 
release, 
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Ohio_Passes_ 
Major_Package_of_Reforms_on_Wrongful_Convictions_Governor_Is_Expected
_to_Sign_Bill_Making_Ohio_a_National_Model.php (accessed November 27, 
2012); S. Michael Lear, Ohio’s Senate Bill 77: A National Model of Reform, 
Vindicator (Spring 2011) 8. 
{¶ 20} With this historical backdrop of S.B. 77 in mind, we now address 
whether R.C. 2933.82 is a retroactive statute.   
The plain language of R.C. 2933.82 
{¶ 21} “It is a cardinal rule that a court must first look to the language of 
the statute itself to determine the legislative intent.  * * *  If that inquiry reveals 
that the statute conveys a meaning which is clear, unequivocal and definite, at that 
point the interpretative effort is at an end, and the statute must be applied 
accordingly.”  Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 105-106, 304 N.E.2d 
378 (1973). 
{¶ 22} The parties disagree over what R.C. 2933.82 requires.  
{¶ 23} Roberts’s argument is that the plain language of R.C. 2933.82 
indicates the General Assembly’s intent that the statute applies to evidence in the 
possession of governmental entities at the time the statute was enacted.  Roberts’s 
primary support for this argument is that R.C. 2933.82(C)(1)(b) requires the 
newly created preservation-of-biological-evidence task force to “[r]ecommend 
practices, protocols, models, and resources for cataloging and accessibility of 
preserved biological evidence already in the possession of governmental 
evidence-retention entities.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 24} As additional support, Roberts cites R.C. 2933.82(A)(1)(a)(ii), 
which defines “biological evidence” as “[a]ny item that contains blood, semen, 
hair, saliva, skin tissue, fingernail scrapings, bone, bodily fluids, or any other 
identifiable biological material that was collected as part of a criminal 
investigation or delinquent child investigation and that reasonably may be used to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
incriminate or exculpate any person for an offense or delinquent act.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  R.C. 2933.82(B)(2) also states that the requirement to secure biological 
evidence applies to evidence that “was in the possession” of a governmental 
evidence-retention entity during the investigation and prosecution of specified 
offenses.  Also, Roberts argues that R.C. 2933.82(B)(4) provides that when a 
defendant, such as himself, requests that a government entity “that possesses 
biological evidence” prepare an inventory of that evidence, the government 
agency shall do so. (Emphasis added.)  Thus, Roberts argues that R.C. 2933.82 
repeatedly states that governmental evidence-retention entities must retain 
biological evidence that was already in their possession at the time the statute was 
enacted.  See, e.g., R.C. 2933.82(B)(3), (5), and (7).   
{¶ 25} We agree with Roberts that the language of R.C. 2933.82 is clear.  
The General Assembly repeatedly used the phrases “was in the possession” or 
“possesses,” which shows an unequivocal intent that the duty to preserve and 
catalog biological evidence applies to evidence that was in the government’s 
possession at the time of the statute’s enactment.  The General Assembly did not 
specify that the statute was to apply only to evidence that would come into the 
possession of the governmental entities after its enactment.  Moreover, the 
General Assembly did not qualify the word “possesses” based on when the 
evidence was gathered. 
{¶ 26} Our holding is supported by the historical context during which 
this statute was enacted.  Because DNA and biological evidence play such 
significant roles in the judicial system, it is imperative that law-enforcement 
agencies handle all evidence with extreme care.  We believe that it is in that spirit 
that the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2933.82. 
R.C. 2933.82 is not a retroactive statute 
{¶ 27} The state argues that because Roberts was convicted in 1997, the 
statute is not applicable to evidence collected in his case unless it is applied 
January Term, 2012 
 
11
retroactively.  The state argues that because R.C. 2933.82 contains no express 
intent that it apply retroactively, it applies prospectively only.  The state begins by 
citing Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 28, which provides that the General 
Assembly “shall have no power to pass retroactive laws.”  The state also relies on 
R.C. 1.48, which provides that “[a] statute is presumed to be prospective in its 
operation unless expressly made retrospective.”  The state argues that it would be 
unfair to expect the state to have collected evidence in Roberts’s 1997 case in 
accordance with procedures adopted in 2010. 
{¶ 28} Roberts counters that this case is not about retroactivity.  Roberts 
asserts that the plain language of the statute requires that the obligation to 
preserve and catalog evidence applies to biological evidence collected after the 
statute was enacted as well as to biological evidence in the possession of law-
enforcement agencies at the time of the statute’s enactment in July 2010.  We 
agree. 
{¶ 29} The retroactivity analysis does not apply to this case and should 
not have been applied by the court of appeals.   We have held that “ ‘[a] statute is 
not retroactive merely because it draws on antecedent facts for a criterion in its 
operation.’ ”  Schoenrade v. Tracy, 74 Ohio St.3d 200, 204, 658 N.E.2d 247, 
quoting United Eng. & Foundry Co. v. Bowers, 171 Ohio St. 279, 282, 169 
N.E.2d 697 (1960).  Therefore, the use of prior facts, or material, does not make 
application of the statute retroactive. 
{¶ 30} Here, R.C. 2933.82 “draws upon antecedent facts” because it 
applies to biological evidence that is “already in the possession of” or “was in the 
possession of” governmental entities at the time it was enacted.  These phrases do 
not make R.C. 2933.82 retroactive, especially considering that there is no 
showing that the General Assembly expressly intended for the statute to apply 
retroactively.  Again, the historical setting in which R.C. 2933.82 was enacted 
supports our holding.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
Conclusion 
{¶ 31} We hold that the obligation to preserve and catalog criminal-
offense-related biological evidence imposed upon certain government entities by 
R.C. 2933.82 applies to evidence in the possession of those entities at the time of 
the statute’s effective date.  Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and remand the cause to the trial court to order the preservation and 
cataloguing of the physical evidence from Roberts’s case, pursuant to his motion, 
and for any other proceedings that may become necessary. 
Judgment reversed  
and cause remanded. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_______________________ 
 
Daniel G. Padden, Guernsey County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Kristopher A. Haines and 
Craig M. Jacquith, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.  
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and David E. 
Romaker Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance on behalf of 
amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. 
Davis Polk & Wardwell, L.L.P., and Sharon Katz, urging reversal on 
behalf of amicus curiae The Innocence Network. 
_______________________