role defense in Ohio

2001Further, a prosecutor “may not * * * denigrate the role of defense counsel by injecting his personal frustration with defense tactics.” State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665, 674 , 641 N.E.2d 755, 761 . *776 The record also supports defendant’s contention that the prosecutor misstated Simone’s testimony.

2001Further, a prosecutor “may not * * * denigrate the role of defense counsel by injecting his personal frustration with defense tactics.” State v. Hart (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 665, 674 , 641 N.E.2d 755, 761 . *776 The record also supports defendant’s contention that the prosecutor misstated Simone’s testimony.

2012Id. at 97 ; Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 61} We have cautioned that the prosecution’s wide latitude to argue the relative strengths of its case and the relative weakness of the defense “does not extend as far as allowing the prosecution to denigrate the role of defense counsel.” State v. Thompson, 161 Ohio App.3d 334 , 2005-Ohio-2508 , 830 N.E.2d 394, ¶ 33 .

2012Id. at 97 ; Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 61} We have cautioned that the prosecution’s wide latitude to argue the relative strengths of its case and the relative weakness of the defense “does not extend as far as allowing the prosecution to denigrate the role of defense counsel.” State v. Thompson, 161 Ohio App.3d 334 , 2005-Ohio-2508 , 830 N.E.2d 394, ¶ 33 .

2025“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180 , 226 N.E.2d 104 .

2025“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars the convicted defendant from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180 , 226 N.E.2d 104 .

2025In State v. Goldwire, 2005-Ohio-5784, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), this Court discussed the role the doctrine of res judicata plays in the analysis of petitions for postconviction relief: The most significant restriction on Ohio's Statutory procedure for post- conviction relief is that the doctrine of res judicata requires that the claim presented in support of the petition represent error supported by evidence outside the record generated by the direct criminal proceedings.” State v. Monroe, Franklin App. No. 04AP-658, 2005-Ohio-5242 .

2023Montgomery No. 20838, 2005-Ohio-5784, ¶ 11 , this Court discussed the role the doctrine of res judicata plays in the analysis of petitions for postconviction relief: “The most significant restriction on Ohio’s Statutory procedure for post-conviction relief is that the doctrine of res judicata requires that the claim presented in support of the petition represent error supported by evidence outside the record generated by the direct criminal proceedings.” State v. Monroe, Franklin App. No. 04AP-658, 2005-Ohio-5242 .

2023California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 (1984). {¶ 60} Appellant’s contention that the text messages from the deceased to appellant contained in “Defense Exhibit A” are exculpatory and pertinent to her defense are not supported by the proffered exhibit.

2023California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 (1984). {¶ 60} Appellant’s contention that the text messages from the deceased to appellant contained in “Defense Exhibit A” are exculpatory and pertinent to her defense are not supported by the proffered exhibit.

2012Id. at 97 ; Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 61} We have cautioned that the prosecution’s wide latitude to argue the relative strengths of its case and the relative weakness of the defense “does not extend as far as allowing the prosecution to denigrate the role of defense counsel.” State v. Thompson, 161 Ohio App.3d 334 , 2005-Ohio-2508 , 830 N.E.2d 394, ¶ 33 .

1991Third Assignment of Error “The trial court committed plain error in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial or in the alternative to revoke its consent for the appellant to proceed without counsel where appellant clearly failed to comprehend either correct criminal procedure or the role of defense counsel in a criminal prosecution, and where appellant either failed or refused to consult with standby counsel, in violation pursuant to \sic ] both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.” The Ohio Supreme Court has indicated the general standard of review to be followed by appellate courts exam

2023Hamilton No. C- 100378, 2011-Ohio-6716, ¶ 18 , but it plays an important role in our analysis of the totality of the circumstances.

2022Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130 , 2010-Ohio-1374 , 926 N.E.2d 617 . {¶ 44} Even if the Purcell principle were to play a role in our analysis of mandamus actions, it would not warrant the denial of a writ of mandamus.

2022Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130 , 2010-Ohio-1374 , 926 N.E.2d 617 . {¶ 44} Even if the Purcell principle were to play a role in our analysis of mandamus actions, it would not warrant the denial of a writ of mandamus.

2020See Sabo, 4 Ohio St.3d at 72 ; Ziegler, 67 Ohio St.3d at 12-13 . {¶148} Therefore, because summary judgment must be awarded with caution, and because the lead opinion has tip-toed perilously close into a factfinder’s role in its analysis of witness credibility, genuine issues of material fact exist in this case.

2011We noted in Black that the prosecution’s wide latitude to argue the relative strengths of its case and the relative weakness of the defense “does not extend as far as allowing the prosecution to denigrate the role of defense counsel.” Id. at 13 ¶35, quoting State v. Thompson, 161 Ohio App.3d 334 , 2005-Ohio-2508, ¶ 33 .