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.
37 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2026 8 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. Campbellgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 326 (2000) (“In a case in which the trial court has imposed sentence without first asking the defendant whether he or she wishes to exercise the right of allocution created by Crim.R. 32(A), resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.”). {¶51} Any error in interrupting appellant’s allocution was harmless error. “‘[E]ven if a court interrupts a defendant’s allocution, [her] right is not violated if [she] is permitted to speak after the interruption.’” State v. Servantes, 2023-Ohio-2116, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.), quoting State 2025See also State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000), paragraph three of the syllabus (resentencing is required for a violation of Crim.R. 32(A), “unless the error is invited error or harmless error”). {¶18} Harmless error, according to Crim.R. 52(A), is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance” that “does not affect substantial rights.” “[A] trial court’s failure to allow a defendant to respond to new information at sentencing constitutes harmless error ‘when the defendant does not object to the new information or if the court’s reasons for the enhanced sentence are unrelated.’” Gutier | 7 | 30 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2001In State v. Green (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 352 , Justice Pfeifer wrote that "(t)rial courts must painstakingly adhere to Crim.R. 32, guaranteeing the right of allocution. 2001See also State v. Green (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 352 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Servantesgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 326 (2000) (“In a case in which the trial court has imposed sentence without first asking the defendant whether he or she wishes to exercise the right of allocution created by Crim.R. 32(A), resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.”). {¶51} Any error in interrupting appellant’s allocution was harmless error. “‘[E]ven if a court interrupts a defendant’s allocution, [her] right is not violated if [she] is permitted to speak after the interruption.’” State v. Servantes, 2023-Ohio-2116, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.), quoting State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roachgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 326 (2000) (“In a case in which the trial court has imposed sentence without first asking the defendant whether he or she wishes to exercise the right of allocution created by Crim.R. 32(A), resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.”). {¶51} Any error in interrupting appellant’s allocution was harmless error. “‘[E]ven if a court interrupts a defendant’s allocution, [her] right is not violated if [she] is permitted to speak after the interruption.’” State v. Servantes, 2023-Ohio-2116, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.), quoting State | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence2016Cuyahoga No. 95972, 2011-Ohio-3985, ¶ 8 (defendant was entitled to remand for further resentencing where transcript from resentencing hearing demonstrated that, while the trial court allowed defense counsel to speak, it failed to personally address the defendant and afford her the opportunity to make a statement or offer information in mitigation of punishment and there were “no factors warranting a finding of invited or harmless error”). {¶18} “Invited error” is more than “mere acquiescence” in the trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 , 687 N.E.2d 1358 (1998). {¶9} The question of what constitutes harmless error in the context of the right to allocution, however, is open to some question. 2013See State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 , 687 N.E.2d 1358 (1998). {¶9} The question of what constitutes harmless error in the context of the right to allocution, however, is open to some question. | 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. Osie (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024Therefore, in cases where the trial court imposes a sentence without first asking the defendant whether he wishes to exercise his right of allocution, "'resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.'" State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966, ¶ 179 , quoting State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 33} Contrary to appellant's assertions, the record in the present case reflects that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 32(A) before imposing a sentence on appellant. 2024Therefore, in cases where the trial court imposes a sentence without first asking the defendant whether he wishes to exercise his right of allocution, "'resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.'" State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966, ¶ 179 , quoting State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (2000), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 33} Contrary to appellant's assertions, the record in the present case reflects that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 32(A) before imposing a sentence on appellant. | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery Nos. 24161, 24163, 2012-Ohio- 1772, ¶ 41. “[R]esentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.” Campbell at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 8} “The doctrine of invited error holds that a litigant may not ‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’ ” Id. at 324, quoting Hal Artz Lincoln- Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 , 502 N.E.2d 590 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2022Montgomery Nos. 24161, 24163, 2012-Ohio- 1772, ¶ 41. “[R]esentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless error.” Campbell at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 8} “The doctrine of invited error holds that a litigant may not ‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’ ” Id. at 324, quoting Hal Artz Lincoln- Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 , 502 N.E.2d 590 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gumins, 90447 (8-21-2008)
green
1 sentence2019Cuyahoga No. 90447, 2008-Ohio-4238 . {¶20} In considering whether an error is harmless, this court must determine whether the error “affect[ed] substantial rights” of the defendant, meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings causing prejudice to the defendant. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lester v. Leuck
green
1 sentence2017Under the invited error doctrine, “[a] party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.” Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 (1943), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2015State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 31 . {¶22} Thus, following a community-control violation, if a trial court imposes sentence without first asking the defendant if he wants to exercise the right of allocution, 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless. 2015State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 31 . {¶22} Thus, following a community-control violation, if a trial court imposes sentence without first asking the defendant if he wants to exercise the right of allocution, 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS resentencing is required unless the error is invited error or harmless. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bolton
green
2 sentences2011State v. Norris, Cuyahoga App. No. 95485, 2011-Ohio-1795 ; State v. Chambers, Cuyahoga App. No. 89319, 2008-Ohio-3017 ; State v. Bolton (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 185, 190 , 757 N.E.2d 841 .1 We acknowledge that the trial court’s failure to personally address the defendant is not prejudicial in every case and that there have been instances where the failure to strictly comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) has been found harmless. 2011State v. Norris, Cuyahoga App. No. 95485, 2011-Ohio-1795 ; State v. Chambers, Cuyahoga App. No. 89319, 2008-Ohio-3017 ; State v. Bolton (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 185, 190 , 757 N.E.2d 841 .1 We acknowledge that the trial court’s failure to personally address the defendant is not prejudicial in every case and that there have been instances where the failure to strictly comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) has been found harmless. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Chambers, 89319 (6-19-2008)
neutral
1 sentence2011State v. Norris, Cuyahoga App. No. 95485, 2011-Ohio-1795 ; State v. Chambers, Cuyahoga App. No. 89319, 2008-Ohio-3017 ; State v. Bolton (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 185, 190 , 757 N.E.2d 841 .1 We acknowledge that the trial court’s failure to personally address the defendant is not prejudicial in every case and that there have been instances where the failure to strictly comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) has been found harmless. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Norris
green
1 sentence2011State v. Norris, Cuyahoga App. No. 95485, 2011-Ohio-1795 ; State v. Chambers, Cuyahoga App. No. 89319, 2008-Ohio-3017 ; State v. Bolton (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 185, 190 , 757 N.E.2d 841 .1 We acknowledge that the trial court’s failure to personally address the defendant is not prejudicial in every case and that there have been instances where the failure to strictly comply with Crim.R. 32(A)(1) has been found harmless. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2008This court has held that "the failure to grant allocution is not harmless error when a defendant is denied the opportunity to address evidence introduced and considered by the trial court at sentencing." Brown , 2006-Ohio-1796 , at ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Castle , 4th Dist. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Defiance v. Cannon
green
2 sentences2005Defiance v. Cannon, (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 821 , 828 , 592 N.E.2d 884 ; State v. Jones, 7th Dist. 2005Defiance v. Cannon, (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 821 , 828 , 592 N.E.2d 884 ; State v. Jones, 7th Dist. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.