Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio
Court News Ohio

Court Rules in 14 Rape Cases Based on Earlier Decisions

Colorful abstract image representing lines of DNA (Thinkstock)

The Supreme Court ruled in 14 Cuyahoga County cases, which were filed after recent DNA analysis of thousands of untested rape kits.

Colorful abstract image representing lines of DNA (Thinkstock)

The Supreme Court ruled in 14 Cuyahoga County cases, which were filed after recent DNA analysis of thousands of untested rape kits.

The Ohio Supreme Court today decided 14 Cuyahoga County criminal cases involving rape charges based on an earlier ruling that an offender had to be sentenced according to the law at the time of his conviction. The Supreme Court determined that the sentences in these 14 cases also must follow the sentencing law in place when the defendants were convicted, rather than the law at the time they committed the crimes.

The Court’s rulings today stemmed from the August 5-2 decision in State v. Thomas. The Court affirmed
the Eighth District Court of Appeals opinions in the 14 cases, which arose from recent DNA analysis of thousands of untested rape kits in Cuyahoga County followed by convictions secured years, sometimes decades, after the crimes. The appeals had been held by the Supreme Court for a decision in Thomas.

Trial Courts Sentenced Offenders Correctly in Nine Cases
In nine of the 14 cases, the trial courts imposed sentences according to the laws on the books when the defendants were convicted. The sentences were typically shorter than those in effect when the crimes were committed. The Eighth District upheld the trial court sentences, and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill agreed in:

  • State v. Irby
  • State v. Stearns
  • State v. Wheeler
  • State v. Brown
  • State v. Jackson
  • State v. Burton
  • State v. Frost
  • State v. Jenkins
  • State v. Gales

Justices Terrence O’Donnell and Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, stating they would reverse and send the cases back to the trial courts with instructions to sentence each defendant according to the law in effect at the time of the offense.

Five Cases Applied Wrong Sentencing Law
In five cases, the trial courts sentenced the offenders using the sentencing law at the time of the crimes. Those prison terms were usually longer than sentences in effect when they were convicted. The Eighth District reversed the trial court rulings, determining that the courts had to apply the sentencing law in place at the time of each conviction. Chief Justice O’Connor and Justices Pfeifer, Lanzinger, French, and O’Neill upheld the Eighth District’s decisions regarding each defendant’s sentence in:

  • State v. Kent
  • State v. Bryan
  • State v. Hill
  • State v. Owens
  • State v. Bell

Justices Terrence O’Donnell and Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, stating they would reinstate the sentences imposed by the trial courts in the cases.

Court Also Responds to Other Argument in Bell
In State v. Bell, along with upholding Kevin Bell’s sentence based on Thomas, the Supreme Court also addressed his claim that the delay in prosecution prejudiced him in violation of his due-process rights. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and affirmed the Eighth District’s application of the two-part test that was upheld in July by the Court in State v. Jones.

The Eighth District ruled in Bell that the preindictment delay had prejudiced him. However, applying the second part of the test balancing the prejudice against the state’s justifiable reason for the delay, the appeals court concluded that Bell’s due-process rights had not been violated.

In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Thomas, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7561.

2015-1893. State v. Bell, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7560.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Adobe PDF PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.