deviation from a legal rule in Ohio

2026The accused “must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings[.]’” Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2026The accused “must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings[.]’” Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2026For the plain- error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the Pickaway 25CA12 26 outcome of the trial.’” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial although neither objected to nor aff

2023“First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.

2023“First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.

2026For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” (Citations omitted.) In re E.A.G., 2024-Ohio-315, ¶ 81 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, and quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 (1997).

2024For an error to be “plain” or “obvious,” the error must be plain “under current law” “at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); accord Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; State v. G.C., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-536, 2016- Ohio-717, ¶ 14.

2026Id. at ¶ 6. {¶ 9} Further, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that in applying the doctrine of plain error in civil cases, “reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doctrine strictly to those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24 . “ ‘[I]n order for a court to find plain error in

2026“In order for a court to find plain error in a civil case, an appellant must establish (1) a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that the error was obvious, and (3) that the error affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process and therefore challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process.” Kelley at ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Morgan, 2017-Ohio-7565 , ¶ 41.

2024In State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the “accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record * * * and must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

2024In State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the “accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record * * * and must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2026In other words, when “there is ‘a deviation from a legal rule,’ courts undertake a “harmless error” inquiry — to determine whether the error affected substantial rights of the criminal defendant.” Id. at ¶ 23, quoting State v. Fisher, 2003-Ohio-2761 , ¶ 7. “‘[S]ubstantial rights’ has been interpreted to require ‘that the error must have been prejudicial.’” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 23, quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).

2023“First, there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001), citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.

2022State v. Parsons, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 18CA011328, 2019-Ohio-5021, ¶ 6 (defendant forfeited all but plain error with respect to Confrontation Clause issue when defendant “objected to a portion of [the] testimony on the basis that it called for a legal conclusion from the witness,” but “he did not object to any of it on hearsay grounds”). {¶91} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error esta

2022State v. Parsons, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 18CA011328, 2019-Ohio-5021, ¶ 6 (defendant forfeited all but plain error with respect to Confrontation Clause issue when defendant “objected to a portion of [the] testimony on the basis that it called for a legal conclusion from the witness,” but “he did not object to any of it on hearsay grounds”). {¶91} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error esta

2026To demonstrate plain error, appellant must identify “(1) a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that the error was obvious, and (3) that the error affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process and therefore challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process.” State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196, 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784, ¶ 41, citing Goldfuss at 121, 679 N.E.2d 1099.

2024Secy. of Veterans Affairs v. Leonhardt, 2015-Ohio-931 , ¶ 47 (3d Dist.) (in a foreclosure proceeding, no objections renewed at the time exhibits were proffered for admission waived all but plain error). “[I]n order for a court to find plain error in a civil case, an appellant must establish (1) a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that the error was obvious, and (3) that the error affected the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process and therefore challenged the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process.” State v. Morgan, 2017-Ohio-7565, ¶ 41 , citing Goldfuss

2018The defendant must show "an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule" that constitutes "an 'obvious' defect in the trial proceedings." State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002), quoting State v. Sanders , 92 Ohio St.3d 245 , 257, 750 N.E.2d 90 (2001). {¶ 37} Plain error does not exist unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

2018The defendant must show "an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule" that constitutes "an 'obvious' defect in the trial proceedings." State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002), quoting State v. Sanders , 92 Ohio St.3d 245 , 257, 750 N.E.2d 90 (2001). {¶ 37} Plain error does not exist unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

2026“To find plain error, we must conclude (1) there was an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule (2) the error was plain, i.e., an obvious defect in the proceedings, and (3) the error affected substantial rights, i.e., the outcome of the proceedings.” State v. Warfield, 2022-Ohio-1818, ¶ 55 (11th Dist.), citing Barnes at ¶ 20.

2025“To find plain error, we must conclude (1) there was an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error was plain, i.e., an obvious defect in the proceedings, and (3) the error affected substantial rights, i.e., the outcome of the proceedings.” State v. Warfield, 2022-Ohio-1818, ¶ 55 (11th Dist.), citing Barnes at ¶ 20 .

2021However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” However, even if the error is obvious, it must have affected substantial rights, and “[w]e have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective as

2021However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” However, even if the error is obvious, it must have affected substantial rights, and “[w]e have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective as

2026“To establish plain error, one must show (1) an error occurred, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error is plain, i.e., an obvious defect in the proceedings, and (3) the error affected a substantial right, i.e., affected the outcome of the proceedings.” State v. Grant, 2019-Ohio-3561, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.).

2026See Crim.R. 52(B) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”). “‘To establish plain error, one must show (1) an error occurred, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error is plain, i.e., an obvious defect in the proceedings, and (3) the error affected a substantial right, i.e., affected the outcome of the proceedings.’” State v. Berila, 2020-Ohio-3523 , ¶ 43 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Grant, 2019-Ohio-3561, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.).

2026“To constitute plain error, there must be: (1) an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, (2) that is plain or obvious, and (3) that affected substantial rights, i.e., affected the outcome of the trial.” Id., citing State v. Barnes, 2002-Ohio-68 .

2025"First, an error, 'i.e., a deviation from a legal rule,' must have occurred." Fuell at id., quoting Barnes at 27.

2026State v. Wood, 2020-Ohio-4251, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.). {¶14} Under this rule, "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." The rule places the following limitations on a reviewing court's determination to correct an error despite the absence of timely objections at trial: (1) "there must be an error, i.e. a deviation from a legal rule," (2) "the error must be plain," that is an error that constitutes "an 'obvious' defect in the trial proceedings," and (3) the error must have affected "substantial rights" such th

2024The rule places the following limitations on a reviewing court's determination to correct an error despite the absence of timely objections at trial: (1) “there must be an error, i.e. a deviation from a legal rule,” (2) “the error must be plain,” that is an error that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights” such that “the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Hoppe, 2023-Ohio-2188 , ¶ 67 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Wood, 2020-Ohio-4251, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Dunn, 2009-

2026State v. Wood, 2020-Ohio-4251, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.). {¶14} Under this rule, "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." The rule places the following limitations on a reviewing court's determination to correct an error despite the absence of timely objections at trial: (1) "there must be an error, i.e. a deviation from a legal rule," (2) "the error must be plain," that is an error that constitutes "an 'obvious' defect in the trial proceedings," and (3) the error must have affected "substantial rights" such th

2024The rule places the following limitations on a reviewing court's determination to correct an error despite the absence of timely objections at trial: (1) “there must be an error, i.e. a deviation from a legal rule,” (2) “the error must be plain,” that is an error that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” and (3) the error must have affected “substantial rights” such that “the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Hoppe, 2023-Ohio-2188 , ¶ 67 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Wood, 2020-Ohio-4251, ¶ 18 (5th Dist.) citing State v. Dunn, 2009-

2008"The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that there are three limitations on a reviewing court's decision to correct an error despite the absence of a timely objection at trial: (1) there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule, (2) the error must be plain, meaning that an obvious defect in the trial proceedings occurred, and (3) the error must have affected substantial rights, meaning that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial." *Page 17 State v. Simms , Hamilton App. Nos. 030138 and 030211, 2004-Ohio-652 , citing State v. Noling , 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 5

2007The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a reversible plain error requires that: "(1) there must be an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error must be plain, which means that it must be an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) the error must have affected substantial rights, which means that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial." (Emphasis and internal quotations omitted.) State v. Noling , 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044 , at ¶ 62 , quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 . "[N] otice of a plain error is taken with t

2026"There must [first] be a deviation from a legal rule, that deviation must be an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and the deviation must have affected substantial rights." (Citation omitted.) Id. "'Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" State v. Nicholson, 2024-Ohio-604, ¶ 114, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2.

2026"There must [first] be a deviation from a legal rule, that deviation must be an obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and the deviation must have affected substantial rights." (Citation omitted.) Id. "'Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" State v. Nicholson, 2024-Ohio-604, ¶ 114, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. 2.

2026The accused “must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings[.]’” Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2026The accused “must show ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings[.]’” Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2024State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , ¶ 139. {¶ 51} For an error to be a “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.

2021State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675 , 2009-Ohio- 5357, ¶ 58 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , ¶ 139. {¶ 69} For an error to be a "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.

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2026Bd. of Revision, 2015-Ohio-4279, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (an appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales- Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134 (2018) (indicating that a court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the out

2021See, e.g., State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , ¶ 230 (where "trial counsel failed to object" to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, defendant "waived all but plain error"); State v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 367 , 2002-Ohio-6659, ¶ 45 ("the defense did not object to [certain] purported acts of prosecutorial misconduct and thus waived all but plain error" there, citing State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604 (1992)). {¶ 53} "A reviewing court recognizes plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Citations omitted.]

2018State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). “[T]he burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008–Ohio–2, 880 N.E.2d 21 , ¶ 378.