COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 29, in a case that will determine if a death-row inmate can use a rule from civil law to challenge his sentence.

The legal challenge involves Danny Lee Hill, who has appealed his 1986 conviction for murder. The key question is whether a rule designed for non-criminal lawsuits can be used to challenge the core reason for a court's decision in a criminal appeal, or if it can only be used to correct a mistake in court procedure, like how paperwork was handled.

Hill, who was convicted of the 1985 murder of 12-year-old Boy Scout Raymond Fife in Warren, is trying to have his case reopened. He wants to argue that he should not face the death penalty because he has an intellectual disability.

Hill was 18 years old when, according to court records, he and an accomplice attacked Fife. Fife died two days later. During Hill's 1986 trial, he was described as intellectually disabled.

When Hill was convicted, states were allowed to execute people with intellectual disabilities. This changed in 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment, prohibits the practice. The federal court then directed states to create their own standards for determining intellectual disability in these cases.

Danny Lee Hill
Danny Lee Hill  

 The Ohio Supreme Court created a three-part test in response. In 2003, Hill first challenged his death sentence, arguing his intellectual disability should prevent his execution. After an 11-day hearing, the Trumbull County trial court denied his petition, a decision the Eleventh District Court of Appeals upheld.

The legal standards shifted again in 2017 when the U.S. Supreme Court determined that new criteria were necessary. Ohio adopted its own updated standard in 2018.

Following the change, a state-hired expert re-evaluated Hill under the new criteria. The expert concluded that Hill is, in fact, intellectually disabled.

After receiving the new expert finding, Hill filed a motion using the Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure. He asked the trial court to grant him "relief from judgment" and reopen his postconviction relief appeal to evaluate his death sentence eligibility under the revised standards.

The trial court rejected the request. It stated that Ohio law provides a specific, exclusive process for postconviction appeals and that a civil rule cannot be used to bypass those requirements. The court considered Hill's request to be an unauthorized second postconviction petition and dismissed the case without reviewing the new evidence of intellectual disability.

Hill appealed that dismissal. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that Hill could use the motion to reopen the appeal. The appeals court sent the case back to Trumbull County, directing the trial court to proceed with further review.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office has appealed the Eleventh District's ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

The Attorney General’s Office argues that the appeals court decision improperly allowed a civil rule to get around the process set by the state legislature for challenging criminal convictions. The state claims that a civil rule cannot give a criminal defendant rights that go beyond what state law allows.

The state contends that Hill is trying to use the civil rule to challenge the basic reasoning of the earlier court ruling, which is something that can only be done by meeting the legal requirements for filing a second postconviction petition. The Attorney General’s Office asserts that the rule can only be used to fix procedural errors that occur during the appeal process.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association has filed a brief supporting the Attorney General’s position.

Counsel for Danny Lee Hill maintains that the Eleventh District Court of Appeals was correct to order the trial court to reconsider the case. They argue the trial court was wrong to treat Hill’s motion simply as a second postconviction petition.

Hill's defense team contends the motion is narrowly focused on asking the court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the case, which was a judgment in a civil-like postconviction appeal. If the trial court grants the motion, Hill could then use the state-law process to argue that new standards mean he is ineligible for execution.

Hill’s representatives also argue that the state’s position effectively takes away the right for death penalty defendants to file a second appeal while allowing non-death penalty defendants to do so. They emphasize that Hill is not trying to overturn his conviction entirely, but only to present new evidence under the revised legal standards for intellectual disability.

The hearing will be streamed live online.