party claiming plain error (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

party claiming plain error in Ohio

19 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2020 0 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Barnesgreen
ohio · 2002 · cited in 9 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2017
2 sentences

2017See State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

2008"A party claiming plain error must show that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was obvious, and (3) the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id., citing State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 ; Crim.

79
Washington v. Recuencogreen
scotus · 2006 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (Blakely error is not a “structural error” and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 207} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

22
State v. Barnesgreen
ohio · 2002 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002 Ohio 68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725 , 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B); see, also, Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S., 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 ( Blakely error is not a `structural error' and is subject to harmless-error analysis). {¶ 59} "The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

2007State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; Crim.R. 52(B).

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Davis green
ohio · 2008
2 sentences

2020A party claiming plain error must show 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. {¶34} Although the trial court provided a curative instruction on reasonable doubt during voir dire, it did not provide a similar instruction regarding the state’s burden of proof or Appellant’s right to remain silent.

2018A party claiming plain error must show 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. {¶ 35} Evid.R. 702 sets forth the standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony.

92011–2020
United States v. Olano green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2008See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 71} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

2008See State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 ; United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Crim.R. 52(B). {¶ 71} The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.

32007–2008
State v. Jones green
ohio · 2000
2 sentences

2018State v. Jones , 90 Ohio St.3d 403 , 416, 739 N.E.2d 300 (2000).

2018State v. Jones , 90 Ohio St.3d 403 , 416, 739 N.E.2d 300 (2000).

12018–2018
State v. Payne green
ohio · 2007
1 sentence

2016No. 14AP-807 11 No. 10AP-289, 2010-Ohio-6122 , ¶ 56, citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007- Ohio-4642, ¶ 17.

12016–2016
State v. Simms neutral
ohioctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2016No. 13AP-299, 2013-Ohio-5142, ¶ 8 , citing State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2008-Ohio-2 , ¶ 378. 7 No. 16AP-96 Dismissal of the indictment of this case meets all three criteria that the error occurred, was obvious, and affected the outcome of the proceeding in that no trial on the merits was ultimately held.

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.03 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.04 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 (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

TN 34 (2010–2024) OH 19 (2007–2020) CT 5 (2003–2026) WY 3 (1991–2007) VT 2 (2019–2023)

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