Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 25 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2023“Reversal is warranted if the party asserting plain error can show that the outcome ‘“would have been different absent the error.”’” Id., quoting Payne at ¶ 17, quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). {¶15} In Griffin, an apposite case, the Eighth District explained: {¶16} “The General Assembly enacted the Reagan Tokes Act in Am.Sub.S.B. 2023“Reversal is warranted if the party asserting plain error can show that the outcome ‘“would have been different absent the error.”’” Id., quoting Payne at ¶ 17, quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). {¶15} In Griffin, an apposite case, the Eighth District explained: {¶16} “The General Assembly enacted the Reagan Tokes Act in Am.Sub.S.B. | 3 | 7 |
State v. Knuffgreen2 sentences2026Standard of Review {¶7} “A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Raines, 2024-Ohio-3236, ¶ 55 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . 2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul | 3 | 5 |
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen2 sentences2025A party asserting plain error must show an obvious error that "'seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity . . . [and] legitimacy of the underlying judicial proceedings.'" Richards v. Newberry, 2015- Ohio-1932, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. 2025But the plain-error doctrine is disfavored in the civil context, and we may find plain error “only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances,” where the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123 (1997). {¶40} The party asserting plain error bears the burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court made an obvious error that affected the party’s substantial rights. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2026E.g., State v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-5088, ¶ 50 . {¶115} “[A] sentence that is contrary to law is plain error.” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.). 2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul | 3 | 3 |
State v. Burrellgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” Price at ¶ 7 , quoting State v. Burrell, 2024-Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). 2025See State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is Ross App. No. 24CA24 33 contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” Price at ¶ 7, quoting State v. Burrell, 2024-Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2025A party asserting plain error must show an obvious error by the trial court that affects that party's "substantial rights" and "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). 2024Stated differently, plain errors "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see also State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ("Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."). {¶ 58} The plain error doctrine should only be applied in civil appeals, which includes permanent custody cases, "in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where [the] error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the ba | 3 | 3 |
State v. Birosgreen2 sentences2024Stated differently, plain errors "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see also State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ("Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."). {¶ 58} The plain error doctrine should only be applied in civil appeals, which includes permanent custody cases, "in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where [the] error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the ba 2024Stated differently, plain errors "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see also State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ("Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."). {¶ 17} Notably, the plain error doctrine has its origins with criminal law, and the Supreme Court of Ohio has stressed that the doctrine should only be applied in civil appeals "in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where [the] error, to which no | 2 | 2 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026“The party asserting plain error ‘bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.’” Speights at ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘[A]ppellate courts are to notice plain error only in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Keslar, 2019-Ohio-540 , ¶ 21. 2026“The party asserting plain error ‘bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.’” Speights at ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘[A]ppellate courts are to notice plain error only in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Keslar, 2019-Ohio-540 , ¶ 21. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Jestergreen2 sentences2023Id. at ¶ 17, citing State v. Jester, 32 Ohio St.3d 147, 150 (1987). {¶11} We “recognize[] plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Smith, 3d Dist. 2019Id. at ¶ 17, citing State v. Jester, 32 Ohio St.3d 147, 150 , 512 N.E.2d 962 (1987). 8. {¶ 22} In order for this court to overturn the lower court’s decision regarding its denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, we must find the trial court committed plain error based on a deviation from the law that is plain or obvious, and that altered the outcome of the trial. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Rainesgreen1 sentence2026Standard of Review {¶7} “A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Raines, 2024-Ohio-3236, ¶ 55 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . | 1 | 1 |
R.E.S. v. M.J.M.green1 sentence2025R.E.S. v. M.J.M., 2025-Ohio-546, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brownergreen1 sentence2024Under Crim.R. 52(B), “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” A party asserting plain error must show (1) a “deviation from a legal rule,” (2) that was “plain, in that there must be an obvious 9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS defect in the trial proceedings,” and (3) that the error “affected substantial rights, meaning that ‘the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.’” State v. Browner, 2024-Ohio-1547, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio- 4218, ¶ 63. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2016In State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held the party asserting plain error has the burden of demonstrating its existence. 2016(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Barnes at 27 . {¶50} The burden is on the party asserting plain error to prove “the outcome ‘would have been different absent the error.’“ State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007–Ohio–4642, 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 17 , quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). {¶51} In the situation before us, it was error for a juror to have a conversation with a witness. | 7 | 2012–2021 |
State v. Echols
green
2 sentences2026State v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-5088, ¶ 50 ; see also State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. 2026State v. Echols, 2024-Ohio-5088, ¶ 50 . | 3 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2022“The party asserting plain error ‘bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.’” Id., quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , citing Quarterman at ¶ 16 . “[A]ppellate courts are to notice plain error only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ in order to prevent ‘a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Keslar, 8th Dist. 2022“The party asserting plain error ‘bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.’” Id., quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , citing Quarterman at ¶ 16 . “[A]ppellate courts are to notice plain error only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ in order to prevent ‘a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Keslar, 8th Dist. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2021We take notice of the Crim.R. 52(B) plain error doctrine “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 36} The party asserting plain error has the burden to provide evidence supporting three determinations: (1) an actual error, i.e., a deviation from the legal rule, (2) the error was plain within the meaning of Crim.R. 52(B), i.e., an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and (3) the error must have affected substantial rights, i.e. 2021We take notice of the Crim.R. 52(B) plain error doctrine “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 36} The party asserting plain error has the burden to provide evidence supporting three determinations: (1) an actual error, i.e., a deviation from the legal rule, (2) the error was plain within the meaning of Crim.R. 52(B), i.e., an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and (3) the error must have affected substantial rights, i.e. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2011State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , ¶378; Crim.R. 52(B). 2010A party asserting plain error bears the burden of showing "that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial." State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , 880 N.E.2d 31 , at ¶378; Crim.R. 52(B). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Graham (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 31 . {¶42} Evid.R. 801(C) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Evid.R. 801(D) provides that a statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior statement by witness The declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to examination by the party against whom the statement i | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Bond
green
1 sentence2024State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Wilks, 2018- Ohio-1562, ¶ 52, and Crim.R. 52(B). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Whitaker
green
1 sentence2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Gordon
green
1 sentence2024Plain error is limited to “exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Gordon, 2018-Ohio-259, ¶ 23 . {¶28} R.C. 2925.51, which governs the use of laboratory reports in cases involving drug offenses, specifies the conditions under which a laboratory report serves as prima-facie evidence of the character of substances being tested at the laboratory. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul 2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2023“Reversal is warranted if the party asserting plain error can show that the outcome ‘“would have been different absent the error.”’” Id., quoting Payne at ¶ 17, quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). {¶15} In Griffin, an apposite case, the Eighth District explained: {¶16} “The General Assembly enacted the Reagan Tokes Act in Am.Sub.S.B. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2021Reversal is warranted if the party asserting plain error can show that the outcome “would have been different absent the error.” Payne at ¶ 17, quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 , 2001-Ohio-141 , 749 N.E.2d 274 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Columbus v. Aleshire
green
1 sentence2021No. 11AP-716, 2012-Ohio-2989 , ¶ 15, quoting Zachery at ¶ 8. {¶ 11} "Trial courts have the responsibility to give all jury instructions that are relevant and necessary in order for the jury to properly weigh the evidence and perform its No. 19AP-683 4 duty as the fact-finder." Columbus v. Aleshire, 187 Ohio App.3d 660 , 2010-Ohio-2773 , ¶ 51 (10th Dist.). " 'A jury instruction is proper when it adequately informs the jury of the law.' " State v. Conway, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Schoen
green
1 sentence2020Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 27} “Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome below would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. Jells, 53 Ohio St.3d 22, 24 , 559 N.E.2d 464 (1990). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jells
green
1 sentence2020Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 27} “Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome below would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. Jells, 53 Ohio St.3d 22, 24 , 559 N.E.2d 464 (1990). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2019State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2017-Ohio-7565 , 103 N.E.3d 784, ¶ 52 . {¶ 57} In support of this assignment of error, appellant-mother points to her direct examination regarding her housing situation during the pendency of this case. 2019State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 , 2017-Ohio-7565 , 103 N.E.3d 784, ¶ 52 . {¶ 57} In support of this assignment of error, appellant-mother points to her direct examination regarding her housing situation during the pendency of this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2016State v. Jackson, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5488, ¶ 134 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Reed green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Byrd green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.