State v. Freeze, 091013 OHCP, CR 12 567674

Docket Nº:CR 12 567674
Opinion Judge:John P. O'Donnell, J.
Party Name:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, v. AARON FREEZE, Defendant
Case Date:September 10, 2013
Court:Court of Common Pleas of Ohio

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff,



No. CR 12 567674

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Cuyahoga

September 10, 2013


John P. O'Donnell, J.


Aaron Freeze was indicted on October 16, 2012. He is charged with a single count of felonious assault allegedly committed on July 14, 2011.

At his July 11, 2013, arraignment the defendant was deemed indigent and counsel was assigned to represent him at the state's expense. On July 25 the trial was scheduled for September 24. On August 26 the defendant filed a " motion for independent DNA test and authorization of funds with order to preserve sample." The plaintiff has not opposed the motion and this entry follows.


The motion, and the record, are devoid of evidence. However, a handwritten Cleveland police " case information form" attached to the indictment describes the crime as follows:

On July 14, 2011, at 4704 Bragdon victim was attacked by several males after exiting his vehicle. Victim sustained severe injuries and confined to the hospital. Blood found at the scene of the incident was collected on 7-15-11 which DNA matched to Aaron Freeze.

The form was completed on September 12, 2012. The passage of more than a year from the crime to the preparation of the case information form suggests that it took that long before the DNA match was made, whereupon the indictment was sought. In his motion, Freeze confirms this inference by summarizing the evidence as " a Codis sample ( sic ) is alleged to be a DNA match to that of the defendant." 1

The defendant is equally terse in describing the reasons justifying the appointment of an expert witness at the state's expense. For a factual basis, he argues that the independent test should be done " in order to show that any DNA present when this incident occurred was not that of the defendant." 2 Freeze goes on to describe the test he is seeking as " conclusive" 3 and says that " it will raise more then ( sic ) a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt." 4 Finally, although he asks that DNA Diagnostics Center5 be appointed as an expert, he provides no evidence about the expert's qualifications or the kind and quality of the test he expects the expert to perform. As his legal basis for the motion, Freeze asserts that he will be denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in this...

To continue reading