recognizes plain error in Ohio

34 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 10 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Williamsgreen ohio · 1997 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2017 2 sentences 2017Under -21- Case No. 13-16-30 the plain error standard, “[w]e may reverse only when the record is clear that defendant would not have been convicted in the absence of the improper conduct.” Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, at ¶ 63 , citing State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 , 679 N.E.2d 646 , (1997). 2017Under -21- Case No. 13-16-30 the plain error standard, “[w]e may reverse only when the record is clear that defendant would not have been convicted in the absence of the improper conduct.” Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, at ¶ 63 , citing State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 , 679 N.E.2d 646 , (1997).	3	4
State v. Smithgreen ohioctapp · 2015 · cited in 11 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2025 2 sentences 2025“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, ¶ 63 (3d Dist.). 2020Hardin No. 6-14-14, 2015-Ohio-2977 , ¶ 63 and Crim.R. 52(B), (“If defense counsel did not object at trial to the allegedly prejudicial remarks, then all but plain error is -47- Case No. 14-18-21 waived.”). “‘A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Stevens, 3d Dist.	1	11
State v. Saleh, 07ap-431 (3-31-2009)green ohioctapp · 2009 · cited in 10 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2015–2026 2 sentences 2026“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Pilgrim, 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Saleh, 2009-Ohio-1542, ¶ 68 (10th Dist.). 2024No. 07AP-431, 2009-Ohio-1542, ¶ 68 .	1	10
State v. Barnesgreen ohio · 2002 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2010–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). 2021State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217-18, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), and State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. " ' A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.' " Ferrell at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.). 1.	1	4
State v. Cookgreen ohio · 1992 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Id., citing Teitelbaum at ¶ 99, citing State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 527 (1992). {¶ 24} "A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice." State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Saleh, 10th Dist.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Pilgrim green ohioctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2024“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Saleh, 10th Dist. 2024“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” No. 23AP-274 24 State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Saleh, 10th Dist.	8	2016–2024
State v. Barnes green ohio · 2002 2 sentences 2019Id. {¶ 8} Here, the crux of appellant's argument is that the statements made by N.B. to Combes were testimonial and made for investigatory purposes and not for the purpose of medical diagnosis. 2009Id.	3	2008–2019
State v. Long green ohio · 1978 2 sentences 2026A court recognizes plain error “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 84} Evid.R. 616(A), provides that evidence of “[b]ias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence.” Petaway has not explained how evidence of a potential mental health issue would establish evidence of “bias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent.” Nor is it readily apparent how this rule has 2015A court recognizes plain error “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 114} Detective Dix’s testimony as to Dr. Vavul-Roediger’s status as a leading child abuse specialist did not amount to plain error, as the resulting prejudice was minimal and the outcome of trial would not have been different had Detective Dix not made such a claim.	2	2015–2026
State v. Stevens green ohioctapp · 2016 2 sentences 2020Allen No. 1-14-58, 2016-Ohio-446, ¶ 55 , quoting Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, at ¶ 63 . 2017“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Stevens, 58 N.E.3d 584 , 2016-Ohio-446, ¶ 55 , quoting Smith, 2015-Ohio-2977, at ¶ 63 .	2	2017–2020
State v. Little green ohioctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2025“A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Pilgrim, 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.); Little, supra at ¶ 31 . {¶44} For an error to be “plain error” under Crim.R. 52(B), it must satisfy three prongs: (1) there must be an error, meaning a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error must be “plain,” meaning an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights,” meaning the error must have affected the outcome of the trial.	1	2025–2025
State v. Tench (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2018 1 sentence 2021State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217-18, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), and State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. " ' A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.' " Ferrell at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.). 1.	1	2021–2021
State v. Rogers green ohio · 2015 1 sentence 2021State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217-18, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), and State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. " ' A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.' " Ferrell at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.). 1.	1	2021–2021
State v. Tench green ohio · 2018 1 sentence 2021State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 217-18, citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), and State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. " ' A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.' " Ferrell at ¶ 24, quoting State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.). 1.	1	2021–2021
State v. Teitelbaum green ohioctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2020Id., citing Teitelbaum at ¶ 99, citing State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 527 (1992). {¶ 24} "A court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice." State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Saleh, 10th Dist.	1	2020–2020
State v. Tyler, Unpublished Decision (12-26-2006) green ohioctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2013Id.	1	2013–2013
State v. Leach green ohio · 2004 1 sentence 2008Id. {¶ 50} Appellant relies on State v. Leach , 102 Ohio St.3d 135 , 2004-Ohio-2147 , to challenge Detective Steller's testimony.	1	2008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.22 (9) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (8) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.145 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.05 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.12 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.11 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 34 (2008–2026) IL 2 (1977–1979)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check