COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the Danny Lee Hill case Wednesday that could determine whether death-row inmates can challenge their sentences using civil procedural rules.

A ruling in Hill’s favor could reopen his case to reevaluate his death penalty eligibility, while a state victory would reinforce strict limits on postconviction appeals, potentially barring similar challenges.

Hill was convicted in 1986 for the murder of 12-year-old Boy Scout Raymond Fife in Warren. At issue is whether Hill can use an Ohio law to reopen his case and present new evidence of intellectual disability, potentially rendering him ineligible for execution.

Hill, who was 18 at the time of the 1985 crime, was described as intellectually disabled during his trial. He was convicted of aggravated murder in Trumbull County and sentenced to death, a penalty permissible at the time. However, a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia banned the execution of intellectually disabled individuals as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, prompting states to develop criteria for assessing such disabilities.

In 2003, Hill challenged his death sentence, citing his intellectual disability under Ohio’s newly established three-part test. After an 11-day evidentiary hearing, the Trumbull County Court rejected his claim — a decision upheld by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, with the Ohio Supreme Court declining to intervene, according to previous media reports.

Legal standards shifted again in 2017 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Moore v. Texas decision, which mandated courts use current clinical standards for intellectual disability assessments. Ohio updated its criteria in 2018, and a state-appointed expert subsequently concluded Hill meets the definition of intellectually disabled.

Armed with this finding, Hill’s defense team filed a 2019 motion under a civil rule, typically used in civil cases, to reopen his postconviction proceeding and reassess his sentence.

The Trumbull County trial court denied the motion, ruling that criminal defendants must use specific postconviction procedures, not civil rules, and deemed Hill’s filing an unauthorized second petition. However, in 2022, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, allowing Hill to use the civil rule to request a review of new evidence under updated standards.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that the civil rule used by Hill’s defense cannot override the state’s criminal appeal framework and that Hill’s motion improperly seeks to relitigate his case.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association supports this position. Hill’s defense counters that the motion is not a second petition but a request to reconsider the prior dismissal, ensuring equal procedural access for death-row inmates.