Court Opinion

ID: 9882934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:22:07.020783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:11.620296
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Birt, 2023-Ohio-2913.]

                                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                             TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                           BUTLER COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                  :

        Appellee,                                :         CASE NO. CA2022-12-121

                                                 :              OPINION
     - vs -                                                      8/21/2023
                                                 :

 JERRY BIRT,                                     :

        Appellant.                               :

              APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                            Case No. CR2011-03-0417

Jerry Birt, pro se.

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Heinkel, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        HENDRICKSON, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Jerry Birt, appeals from a decision of the Butler County Court of

Common Pleas denying his postconviction application for DNA testing. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

        {¶ 2} In 2011, appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of rape, one count of

attempted rape, intimidation of a witness, and reckless operation. A full summary of the
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-121

testimony and evidence presented at appellant's trial was set forth in our prior decision,

State v. Birt, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-02-031, 2013-Ohio-1379. Rather than repeat

those facts in full, we limit our discussion to those facts necessary to the resolution of

appellant's application for DNA testing.

      {¶ 3} Appellant's rape and attempted rape convictions arose out of allegations that

between 2005 and March 6, 2011, appellant sexually abused his biological daughter, T.G.,

who was about 8 or 9 when the abuse began. The abuse, which T.G. testified included

vaginal and anal sex as well as forced fellatio, occurred over a period of years at multiple

residences in Germantown, Ohio and Middletown, Ohio. The last incident of sexual abuse,

which correlated to the rape charge set forth in Count 6 in the indictment, occurred on March

6, 2011. At trial, the following evidence was offered by T.G. and by M.M. about the March

6, 2011 incident:

             T.G. testified that on March 6, 2011, when she was 12 years
             old, her father told her to go to his bedroom. "[M]y dad came in
             there in the bedroom, and he told me to pull my pants down, so
             when I pulled my pants down, my dad pulled down his pants,
             and he stuck it in my vagina, and he kept doing it." T.G.
             indicated that at some point, [appellant] stopped to see if their
             houseguest, [M.M.], was still in the shower. When [appellant]
             returned to the bedroom, T.G. testified that [appellant] once
             again pulled his pants down to his knees and told her to "suck
             his penis." T.G. testified that [M.M.] pushed opened the door to
             the bedroom and saw what she was doing. T.G. explained that
             [appellant] pulled up his pants once [M.M.] entered the room,
             however, this did not end the abuse. Once [M.M.] left, T.G.
             testified that [appellant] started all over again. [Appellant] pulled
             down his pants and her pants and inserted his penis in T.G.'s
             vagina, mouth, and anus.               [M.M.] provided testimony
             corroborating T.G.'s description of the events on March 6, 2011.

             [M.M.] testified that he went over to [appellant's] residence on
             that day because he had gotten into a fight with his "old lady."
             At some point in the early afternoon, [M.M.] took a shower.
             [M.M.] testified that after the shower, he went back to
             [appellant's] bedroom to ask for a cigarette. He explained that
             the door was cracked open about an inch and a half, so "I swung
             the door open, and all I could get out of my mouth is, 'Can I get

                                             -2-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-12-121

              a - ' and [appellant] had jumped, turned around with his penis
              sticking out of his pants, and his daughter wiping her mouth off."

Birt at ¶ 42-43.

       {¶ 4} On March 7, 2011, hours after the incident between T.G. and appellant

occurred, T.G. was examined at Cincinnati Children's Hospital by Dr. Stephen Warrick. In

his physical examination of T.G., Dr. Warrick did not observe a tear or acute injury to T.G.'s

hymen or an acute injury to her anus. However, he did observe erythema, or redness, on

one side of her labia and a small abrasion, about one-half an inch long, on the other side.

       {¶ 5} A rape kit was collected at the hospital by Elizabeth Stenger, a pediatric nurse

sexual assault examiner. For the rape kit, among other things, vaginal swabs, rectal swabs,

oral swabs, and dried-stain swabs from the left breast, right breast, and left side of the neck

were collected from T.G.'s person. The rape kit, along with a buccal swab taken from

appellant for a DNA reference standard, were sent to the Miami Valley Regional Crime

Laboratory, where they were analyzed by Steven M. Wiechman, a forensic scientist. The

vaginal swabs, rectal swabs, and oral swabs failed to indicate the presence of semen.

Wiechman explained that the lack of semen was not inconsistent with a sexual assault as

sometimes it simply is not left or, in some instances, he may not be able to find it.

       {¶ 6} DNA testing was done on the vaginal swab and on the dried-stain swabs from

the left breast, right breast, and left side of T.G.'s neck. There was no male DNA found on

the vaginal swab. Wiechman used the vaginal swabs to obtain a DNA profile for T.G. The

right breast swab was found to contain a DNA mixture of two people—T.G. and appellant.

According to Wiechman, appellant was "the major contributor" of the DNA found on the

swab. He testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty the male DNA profile

found on the swab was from appellant, explaining that "it far exceeded a thousand times

the world's population which is almost 7 billion now," which meant he would have to test

                                             -3-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-12-121

that many people before he would find one person with a DNA profile similar to that found

on the swab.

       {¶ 7} As for the left breast swab, Wiechman testified that it contained a mixture of

more than two contributors and appellant could not be excluded as one of the contributors.

Wiechman explained, "comparing [appellant's] reference standard to this mixture, he has

the possibility of being one of those contributors. That's not to say that he is in there, but

he is possible, he is a possible contributor." He went on to state the following:

               And in making that determination, I have to put weight as to that
               match or that inclusion, and so with respect to that, I would say
               in the African-American population, it's one in 1.7 million
               Americans, African Americans. In the Caucasian population, it's
               one in 445, sorry, 445,800, and then in the southwest Hispanic
               population, it's one in 14,880,000. And so to kind of give you an
               explanation of those numbers, that means I would actually have
               to examine almost 1.7 million profiles before I would expect to
               see a possible contributor that would be in this possible mixture,
               and that's with respect to the African-American population.

               ***

               With respect to the Caucasian population, it was 445,800
               Caucasians. Basically, what that means is kind of the same
               thing with respect to the other populations is that I would have
               to test almost 450,000 people before I would expect to see
               another possible contributor into this mixture.

Additional DNA was present on the left breast swab that was not from either appellant or

T.G.

       {¶ 8} Finally, with respect to the swab of the left side of T.G.'s neck, Wiechman

testified he obtained a "partial mixed DNA profile" that was consistent with being a mixture

of two individuals and appellant could not be excluded as a possible contributor to that

mixture. He explained, "with respect to the numbers on that particular profile, it was one in

1,489,000 in [the] African-American population, one in 1.682 million in the Caucasian

population, and on the southwest Hispanic population, it was one in 13,640,000."

                                             -4-
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-121

       {¶ 9} On cross-examination, Wiechman was questioned about the ability for DNA

to be transferred to an object or to another individual through touch or by a secondary

transfer through an object, such as a towel. Wiechman testified that with respect to the

DNA profile found on the right breast swab, "based on the amount that I found in there being

that he [appellant] was the major [contributor] which means he made up the majority of this

particular swab, I would say that it would be unlikely that it came from a secondary transfer."

       {¶ 10} A jury ultimately convicted appellant of five counts of rape, one count of

attempted rape, intimidation of a witness, and reckless operation. Prior to his sentencing,

appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Acquittal and New Trial. The motion

was denied by the trial court. Appellant then filed a Motion for New Trial Based on New

Evidence, which was also denied by the trial court.

       {¶ 11} Subsequently, on February 16, 2012, appellant was sentenced to an

aggregate prison term of 43 years to life in prison. His conviction and 36-month sentence

for intimidation of a witness was vacated for insufficient evidence on direct appeal. Birt,

2013-Ohio-1379 at ¶ 14-22. His remaining assignments of error challenging a supposed

"duplicitous indictment and charges," the denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal based

on venue and the failure to establish specific dates for the rape offenses, the manifest

weight of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and his sentence were overruled.

See Birt.

       {¶ 12} In October 2019, more than seven years after his convictions, appellant filed

a petition for postconviction relief, raising claims of judicial bias, ineffective assistance of

counsel, cruel and unusual punishment, and the alleged recantation of the victim's trial

testimony. On February 19, 2020, the trial court dismissed appellant's untimely petition for

postconviction relief, finding that appellant failed to demonstrate he had been unavoidably

prevented from presenting his claims or that an outcome-determinative constitutional error

                                             -5-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-12-121

occurred at trial. Appellant did not timely appeal the trial court's decision, and on December

22, 2020, this court denied his motion for a delayed appeal. State v. Birt, 12th Dist. Butler

No. CA2020-11-110 (Dec. 22, 2020) (Entry Denying Motion to File Delayed Appeal).

       {¶ 13} On May 2, 2022, appellant filed an Application for DNA Testing, seeking to

have the dried-stain swabs collected from T.G.'s left breast and left side of her neck retested

and compared to M.M.'s DNA profile, which appellant indicated had been submitted to

"CODIS" following M.M.'s felony arrest. Appellant argued that T.G. had recanted her trial

testimony and identified M.M. as her sexual assailant and that DNA testing of the swabs

collected from T.G.'s left breast and left side of the neck would show appellant's innocence

of the crimes. Attached to his application for DNA testing was a notarized letter from T.G.,

dated December 18, 2017, a docket printout identifying M.M. as a defendant in a felony

case, printed text messages, purportedly from T.G.'s phone, and a single page of his trial

transcript.

       {¶ 14} On May 24, 2022, the state filed a memorandum in opposition to appellant's

application for DNA testing. The state argued that DNA testing was not permitted pursuant

to R.C. 2953.74(B)(2) as further DNA testing would not be outcome determinative as it

related to appellant. That is, appellant would not be excluded as a possible DNA contributor

even if another individual—M.M.—was found to have contributed to the mixed DNA profile

found on the left breast swab. The state further argued that the DNA from the rape kit was

only "marginally relevant" as it related to only one count (Count 6) when appellant had been

found guilty and incarcerated for an additional four counts of rape and one count of

attempted rape. Attached to the state's memorandum in opposition were two Miami Valley

Regional Crime Laboratory reports, one dated July 18, 2011 and the other August 19, 2011,

which had been prepared by Wiechman following his analysis of T.G.'s rape kit.

       {¶ 15} Appellant filed a reply brief in support of his application for DNA testing,

                                             -6-
                                                                       Butler CA2022-12-121

arguing that the DNA analysis was invalid as no "victim reference standard" had been used

during Wiechman's testing. Appellant further argued that his DNA being found on swabs

taken from T.G.'s person did not account for the biological relationship between himself and

T.G. or account for the "physical altercation" that appellant claimed took place on March 6,

2011 between T.G., M.M., and himself.

       {¶ 16} On November 15, 2022, more than six months after filing his application for

DNA testing, appellant filed a "Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Defendant's

Motion for DNA Testing." Appellant sought to bolster his application by including a second

letter from T.G., this one signed, but not notarized (dated November 15, 2015), and two

recordings from T.G., recorded on April 17 and 21, 2019, wherein T.G. recanted her trial

testimony about the sexual abuse and rapes.

       {¶ 17} On December 2, 2022, the trial court issued a decision denying appellant's

application for DNA testing, stating in relevant part the following:

              In this case, the defendant's DNA was found on the victim as it
              related to the charge in Count 6 of the indictment. As such, this
              is not a case where the defendant would ever be excluded as a
              possible DNA contributor. Further, even if additional DNA
              testing would provide a result establishing the presence of
              someone else's DNA other than that of the defendant, such
              result would not be outcome determinative. Rather, it would
              only establish that someone else had contact with the victim in
              this case.

              In reviewing the matter, the Court has reviewed the application,
              the supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence attached to
              the State's response as well as the files and records pertaining
              to the proceedings against the defendant. In doing so, the Court
              finds that prior DNA testing included the defendant and that any
              further DNA testing would not be outcome determinative. The
              defendant's application for DNA testing is hereby denied.

       {¶ 18} Appellant appealed the denial of his application for DNA testing, raising two

assignments of error for review.

       {¶ 19} Assignment of Error No. 1:

                                             -7-
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-121

       {¶ 20} APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL

FAIRNESS UNDER THE OHIO AND U.S. CONSTITUTIONS AND THE TRIAL COURT

ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIS MOTION FOR DNA

TESTING WHEN THE INITIAL TESTING WAS THE SUBJECT OF ERROR AND

ADMITTED DEFICIENCY, FAILED TO PROVIDE DEFINITIVE AND DETERMINATIVE

RESULTS, WAS NOT OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE TO GUILT, THE VICTIM/WITNESS

RECANTED PRIOR TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT'S GUILT, AND THE VICTIM/WITNESS

IDENTIFIED THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME(S) AGAINST HER, WHO WAS NOT

APPELLANT.

       {¶ 21} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying

his application for DNA testing as the 2011 DNA testing was flawed and incomplete and,

therefore, could not be considered "outcome determinative." He further argues that T.G.'s

recantation of appellant as the individual who sexually assaulted her and her identification

of M.M. as the perpetrator demonstrate why additional DNA testing of the left breast swab

and left side of the neck swab are necessary.

       {¶ 22} Postconviction DNA testing for eligible inmates is addressed in R.C. 2953.71

through 2953.81. Detailed grounds for accepting or rejecting applications can be found in

R.C. 2953.74. State v. Curtis, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2014-10-019, 2015-Ohio-2460, ¶ 8.

       {¶ 23} An appellate court reviews the trial court's decision regarding the acceptance

or denial of an offender's application for postconviction DNA testing for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Widmer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-008, 2013-Ohio-62, ¶ 111;

State v. Scott, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4277, ¶ 10. "That discretion is to be exercised

on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique facts of each case." Id. See also R.C.

2953.74(A) (trial court "has the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to either accept or reject

the application" for DNA testing). "The term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an

                                              -8-
                                                                                    Butler CA2022-12-121

error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or

unconscionable." State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). "When applying the

abuse-of-discretion standard, an appellate court may not merely substitute its judgment for

that of the trial court." Curtis at ¶ 9.

        {¶ 24} Appellant's application for DNA testing relates to materials that had already

been tested during the trial stage of his case. Appellant's application is therefore subject to

R.C. 2953.74(B)(2), which provides as follows:

                 If an eligible offender submits an application for DNA testing
                 under section 2953.73 of the Revised Code, the court may
                 accept the application only if * * *

                 (2) The offender had a DNA test taken at the trial stage in the
                 case in which the offender was convicted of the offense for
                 which the offender is an eligible offender and is requesting the
                 DNA testing regarding the same biological evidence that the
                 offender seeks to have tested, the test was not a prior definitive
                 DNA test that is subject to division (A) of this section, and the
                 offender shows that DNA exclusion when analyzed in the
                 context of and upon consideration of all available admissible
                 evidence related to the subject offender's case as described in
                 division (D) of this section would have been outcome
                 determinative at the trial stage in that case.

(Emphasis added.)1

        {¶ 25} An "exclusion" or "exclusion result" means "a result of DNA testing that

scientifically precludes or forecloses the subject offender as a contributor of biological

material recovered from the crime scene or victim in question, in relation to the offense for

which the offender is an eligible offender[.]" R.C. 2953.71(G). "Outcome determinative"

means that

                 had the results of DNA testing of the subject offender been
                 presented at the trial of the subject offender requesting DNA
                 testing and been found relevant and admissible with respect to

1. An "eligible offender" is defined as "an offender who is eligible under division (C) of section 2953.72 of the
Revised Code to request DNA testing to be conducted under sections 2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised
Code." R.C. 2953.71(F). The state concedes appellant is an "eligible offender."

                                                      -9-
                                                                                  Butler CA2022-12-121

                the felony offense for which the offender is an eligible offender
                and is requesting the DNA testing, and had those results been
                analyzed in the context of and upon consideration of all
                available admissible evidence related to the offender's case as
                described in division (D) of section 2953.74 of the Revised
                Code, there is a strong probability that no reasonable factfinder
                would have found the offender guilty of that offense[.]

R.C. 2953.71(L).

        {¶ 26} In the present case, appellant's DNA was found on the victim as it related to

Count 6 of the indictment, rape. Testing of the right breast swab was found, pursuant to a

definitive DNA test, to be the DNA of appellant. "Definitive DNA test" means "a DNA test

that clearly establishes that biological material from the perpetrator of the crime was

recovered from the crime scene and also clearly establishes whether or not the biological

material is that of the eligible offender." R.C. 2953.71(U).2 As Wiechman explained at trial,

appellant was the "major contributor" of the DNA found on the right breast swab and he

would have to test a thousand times the world's population of almost 7 billion before another

person with a DNA profile similar to that found on the swab could be found.

        {¶ 27} In addition to definitively finding appellant's DNA on the right breast swab,

appellant could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA mixture found on the left breast

swab or the swab of the left side of T.G.'s neck. Despite not being able to be excluded as

a contributor, appellant wants new DNA testing done on the left breast swab and the swab

collected from the left side of T.G.'s neck as he believes another individual, M.M., could be

identified as a contributor to the DNA mixture. However, even if additional DNA testing

established the presence of someone else's DNA other than that of appellant, such a result

would not exclude appellant as a contributor to the biological evidence obtained from T.G.'s

2. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.71(U), "[a] prior DNA test is not definitive if the eligible offender proves by a
preponderance of the evidence that because of advances in DNA technology there is a possibility of
discovering new biological material from the perpetrator that the prior DNA test may have failed to discover.
Prior testing may have been a prior 'definitive DNA test' as to some biological evidence but may not have been
a prior 'definitive DNA test' as to other biological evidence."

                                                   - 10 -
                                                                      Butler CA2022-12-121

breasts and neck swabs. Rather, it would only establish that someone else had contact

with T.G. As such, it would not be outcome determinative. See State v. Sells, 2d Dist.

Montgomery No. 2016-CA-15, 2017-Ohio-987, ¶ 10 (upholding the denial of a

postconviction application for DNA testing where, even if testing of the murder weapon and

victim's pants had yielded a result establishing the presence of someone else's DNA, it

would not have been outcome determinative, but rather would "establish only that someone

else had touched the bat and had contact with the victim"); State v. Blair, 2d Dist. Clark No.

2017-CA-75, 2018-Ohio-4041, ¶ 16 (upholding the denial of a postconviction application for

DNA testing where, "with a positive test of Blair's DNA, the best he could hope for from a

subsequent more sensitive test of the same biological material would be a result showing

that the car seat DNA was a mixture from Blair and someone else, but that would not be a

'DNA exclusion' and further would not have been 'outcome determinative'").

       {¶ 28} The presence of another person's DNA on the swabs collected from T.G.'s

person would not exonerate appellant of the rape charge contained in Count 6 or on the

remaining four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. See State v. Madden, 10th

Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-172, 2008-Ohio-2653, ¶ 11 (upholding the denial of an application

for postconviction DNA testing where "the allegation that appellant ejaculated on the carpet

only concerned the incident that took place on August 22, 2001.           Given the victim's

testimony that appellant sexually abused her on multiple occasions over a roughly two-year

period, an 'exclusion result' from the DNA testing requested by appellant would hardly be

considered 'outcome determinative'"); State v. Williamson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106480,

2018-Ohio-2226, ¶ 11-14 (upholding the denial of a postconviction application for DNA

testing where the defendant was convicted of twelve counts of rape of the victim and the

cup and flooring that the defendant wanted tested related only to a single incident, thereby

demonstrating that "an 'exclusion result' from the DNA testing on these items * * * would not

                                            - 11 -
                                                                                     Butler CA2022-12-121

be outcome determinative"). The inclusion of another individual as a possible contributor

to a mixed DNA profile obtained from evidence collected from the March 6, 2011 incident

has no bearing on the earlier rapes that occurred between 2005 and March 5, 2011.

        {¶ 29} Appellant seeks to have the reliability of the 2011 DNA test results wholly

discounted because of "flaws" he believes existed in the testing and analysis of the rape-

kit swabs. Appellant first takes issue with the fact that the state did not submit a victim

reference standard by means of a buccal swab to the Miami Valley Regional Crime

Laboratory for comparison purposes. He further argues that Wiechman's analysis of the

mixed DNA profiles found on all the swabs failed to account for the fact that T.G. was

appellant's biological daughter who shared appellant's DNA and failed to "take into account

the events" of March 6, 2011, wherein "[a]ppellant, [M.M.] and T.G. were all engaged in a

physical altercation where contact or 'touch' DNA could be freely distributed among the

participants." All of these supposed "flaws" appellant complains of were issues addressed

in Wiechman's trial testimony and went to the weight of the DNA evidence, not to the

reliability or admissibility of the evidence.3 They do not change the fact that appellant

cannot be excluded as a contributor to the mixed DNA profiles found on T.G.'s breasts and

3. As to the "victim reference standard," Wiechman explained that he obtained a DNA profile for T.G. from
her vaginal swabs and used the vaginal swabs for comparison purposes in analyzing the mixed DNA profiles
found on the breast and neck swabs. Wiechman also explained how "touch DNA" or "transfer DNA" occurred
stating, "DNA transfer is perhaps like touch DNA from taking DNA form one person either to another person
or to another object. So you're actually such as, you know, your hand, for example, if you're sweating and I
touch this, that would be a primary transfer from one person to this object." He expounded on the possibility
of touch DNA or transfer DNA being responsible for the mixed DNA profile found on T.G.'s right breast swab,
stating, "based on the amount that I found in there being that he [appellant] was the major [contributor] which
means he made up the majority of this particular swab, I would say that it would be unlikely that it came from
a secondary transfer." Finally, with respect to the effect T.G.'s status as appellant's biological daughter had
on his analysis of the mixed DNA profiles found on the dried-stain swabs, Wiechman explained the following:

                His biological children would have half [of his DNA], because they came from
                him, so half from mom, half from dad, so they would share half, but their
                profiles would still be different, and I could still make comparisons to say yes,
                this is this person; yes, this is this person, because they are different, but
                they do share half.

                                                     - 12 -
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-121

neck. In this case, additional DNA testing would not be outcome determinative. The trial

court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's postconviction

application for DNA testing. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 30} Assignment of Error No. 2:

       {¶ 31} APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE TRIAL

COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO DO ITS

DUTY WHEN IT DID NOT CONSIDER OR ADDRESS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE

PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO HIS MOTION FOR DNA

TESTING, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO PROVIDE A FULL AND

FAIR RULING.

       {¶ 32} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in

denying his application for DNA testing without considering or addressing all the evidence

he submitted in support of his motion. Specifically, appellant contends the court erred by

failing to address the evidence he submitted showing T.G. had recanted her trial testimony,

including T.G.'s December 18, 2017 notarized letter, the text messages purportedly sent

from T.G.'s phone, and the August 17 and 21, 2019 video recordings.

       {¶ 33} R.C. 2953.73(D) provides that in determining whether an application for DNA

testing should be accepted or rejected, the court "shall consider the application, the

supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, and in addition to those materials,

shall consider all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the applicant,

including, but not limited to, the indictment, the court's journal entries, the journalized

records of the clerk of the court, and the court reporter's transcript and all responses to the

application[.]" Following its determination, the trial court shall enter a judgment that accepts

or rejects the application and "includes within the judgment and order the reasons for the

acceptance or rejection as applied to the criteria and procedures set forth in sections

                                             - 13 -
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-121

2953.71 to 2953.81 of the Revised Code." (Emphasis added). Id.

                                      Video Recordings

       {¶ 34} The video recordings appellant complains were not considered by the trial

court were attached to his "Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Defendant's

Motion for DNA Testing," which was filed more than six months after his application for DNA

testing was filed. The trial court did not expressly rule on whether it was granting appellant's

motion to supplement the record prior to issuing its decision denying appellant's application

for DNA testing. "'When a trial court fails to rule on a motion, an appellate court considers

the motion denied.'" State v. Rarden, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-07-090, 2022-Ohio-

873, ¶ 12, quoting New Residential Mtge., L.L.C. v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-

04-027, 2020-Ohio-6907, ¶ 16. See also In re F.B., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2021-03-002,

2022-Ohio-499, ¶ 61 ("[w]here a court fails to mention or rule on a pending motion, we

presume that the motion was implicitly overruled"); Cleveland v. Barnes, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 111867, 2023-Ohio-1888, ¶ 23 ("it is well-settled that when a court fails to rule on a

motion it will be presumed that the court * * * denied said motion"). As the trial court did not

rule on the motion to supplement the record prior to denying appellant's application for DNA

testing, it is presumed denied. The video recordings, therefore, were not properly before

the trial court and the court did not err in not specifically addressing the recordings.

       {¶ 35} Appellant has not set forth an assignment of error challenging the denial of

the motion to supplement, as required by App.R. 16(A). As such, we need not address

whether the trial court properly denied the motion to supplement. See App.R. 12(A)(2). We

note, however, that the recordings were not submitted through an affidavit or otherwise

authenticated, as required by Evid.R. 901 to be admissible. They therefore would not have

been proper evidence for consideration. See R.C. 2953.74(D) ("If an eligible offender

submits an application for DNA testing under section 2953.73 of the Revised Code, the

                                             - 14 -
                                                                              Butler CA2022-12-121

court, in determining whether the 'outcome determinative' criterion described in divisions

[B][1] and [B][2] of this section has been satisfied, shall consider all available admissible

evidence related to the subject offender's case"). (Emphasis added.)

                               Notarized Letter and Text Messages

       {¶ 36} As for the remaining evidence appellant complains the trial court failed to

consider—T.G.'s December 18, 2017 notarized letter and the text messages—we find that

the record reflects the trial court considered the evidence.4 Though the notarized letter and

text messages were not individually addressed in the trial court's decision, the court noted

in its denial of appellant's request for DNA testing that it had reviewed "the application, the

supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence attached to the State's response as well

as the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the defendant." As the

notarized letter and text messages were discussed by appellant in his application and were

appended to it, the trial court clearly reviewed and considered the evidence in ruling on his

application for DNA testing.

       {¶ 37} Though appellant argues the trial court should have specifically discussed

T.G.'s recantation letter and text messages in its decision, the trial court was not required

to do so.     R.C. 2953.73(D) only requires the trial court in accepting or rejecting an

application for DNA testing to include "the reasons for the acceptance or rejection" of the

application in its decision. Here, the trial court did this, finding R.C. 2953.74(B)(1) was

inapplicable and that the requirements of R.C. 2953.74(B)(2) had not been met. With

respect to R.C. 2953.74(B)(2), the court found that "this [was] not a case where the

[appellant] would ever be excluded as a possible DNA contributor" since his DNA had been

4. It is unnecessary to discuss whether the notarized letter or text messages were properly construed as
"admissible evidence" under R.C. 2953.74(D), as the record reflects the court considered the letter and
messages and, even with consideration of these items, appellant did not meet his burden for DNA testing
under R.C. 2953.74(B)(2).

                                                - 15 -
                                                                     Butler CA2022-12-121

found on the victim with respect to Count 6 of the indictment. The court further addressed

why further DNA testing of the breast and neck swabs would not be outcome determinative,

stating that "even if additional DNA testing would provide a result establishing the presence

of someone's DNA other than that of the [appellant], such result would not be outcome

determinative. Rather, it would only establish that someone else had contact with the victim

in this case." The trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2953.73(D) in issuing

its decision, thereby permitting this court to conduct a meaningful review of its decision.

Appellant's second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.

      {¶ 38} Judgment affirmed.

      S. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.

                                           - 16 -