# State v. Luckett

> Ohio Court of Appeals · July 17, 2001 · 144 Ohio App. 3d 648

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3755500

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. LUCKETT, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 17, 2001
- **Citations:** 144 Ohio App. 3d 648; 761 N.E.2d 84
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by George
- **Judges:** Corrigan, George, Cooney, Ninth
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3755500

## Opinion text

Joyce J. George, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion that the trial court abused its discretion, first, by not following the standards it established for itself and, second, by not making the findings required by
State v. Petro
(1947), 148 Ohio St. 505 , 36 O.O. 165 , 76 N.E.2d 370 . Before reaching the requirements of
Petro ,
the trial court set out an evidentiary standard to be met,
ie.,
that the DNA evidence would only be probative if the defendant could show that the sample came from the rapist. No evidence was offered as to the source of the DNA. Nonetheless, the trial court granted a new trial, ignoring the very standard it had established to be met. This was an abuse of discretion, preceding the failure to make the
Petro
findings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3755500. Public record. Not legal advice.