prosecutorial misconduct claim in Ohio

18 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 5 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Williamsgreen ohio · 1997 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016 2 sentences 2016No. 07AP-431, 2009-Ohio-1542, ¶68 (no objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination reviewed under plain-error standard); State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 , 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997) (applying the plain-error standard to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). {¶62} When evaluating a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). 2016No. 07AP-431, 2009-Ohio-1542, ¶68 (no objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination reviewed under plain-error standard); State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 , 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997) (applying the plain-error standard to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). {¶62} When evaluating a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).	2	3
State v. Lottgreen ohio · 1990 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2023–2025 2 sentences 2025Further, Harper alleges that the prosecutor’s closing remarks improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense when he stated, [B]ut you know what [the driver] did say, [Defense counsel] didn’t bring this up, because it’s pretty damning to his case, [the driver] said, ‘why am I being arrested for this?’ {¶21} For a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, we consider “(1) whether the remarks or questions were improper, and (2) if so, whether the remarks affected the accused’s substantial rights.” State v. Truesdell, 2024-Ohio-5376, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.), 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS citing St 2023State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.2d 160 , [ 555 N.E.2d 293 ].	1	2
State v. Raileygreen ohioctapp · 2024 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 1 sentence 2026See State v. Railey, 2024-Ohio-5502, ¶ 27, ¶ 51-53 (1st Dist.) (court found prosecutor engaged in misrepresentations where prosecutor misstated the nature of the DNA and Y-STR evidence in closing argument); State v. Howard, 2023-Ohio-3870 (8th Dist.) (court found that prosecutor engaged in improper conduct by repeatedly referring to defendant’s DNA and semen when there was no evidence of it); State v. Metcalf, 2012-Ohio-674 , ¶ 7, ¶ 23-27 (12th Dist.) (court found that prosecutor mischaracterized DNA and Y-STR evidence repeatedly while questioning witnesses when there was no evidence that defe	1	1
State v. Truesdellgreen ohioctapp · 2024 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Further, Harper alleges that the prosecutor’s closing remarks improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense when he stated, [B]ut you know what [the driver] did say, [Defense counsel] didn’t bring this up, because it’s pretty damning to his case, [the driver] said, ‘why am I being arrested for this?’ {¶21} For a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, we consider “(1) whether the remarks or questions were improper, and (2) if so, whether the remarks affected the accused’s substantial rights.” State v. Truesdell, 2024-Ohio-5376, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.), 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS citing St	1	1
State v. Saleh, 07ap-431 (3-31-2009)green ohioctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016No. 07AP-431, 2009-Ohio-1542, ¶68 (no objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination reviewed under plain-error standard); State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 , 679 N.E.2d 646 (1997) (applying the plain-error standard to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). {¶62} When evaluating a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).	1	1
State v. Simsgreen ohioctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See also State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 12 (1997) (applying the plain error standard to a prosecutorial misconduct claim). {¶ 32} Crim.R. 12.1 provides that, "[w]henever a defendant in a criminal case proposes to offer testimony to establish an alibi on his behalf, he shall, not less than seven days before trial, file and serve upon the prosecuting attorney a notice in writing of his intention to claim alibi." "[W]here a defendant has filed a timely notice of alibi, and has given testimony tending to prove the alibi, it is error for the court to permit the prosecutor to adduce evidence of 2014Because Crim.R. 12.1 requires only that a defendant file their notice of alibi seven days before trial, "[t]he fact that the notice of alibi was not filed promptly after arrest is not probative of guilt." Id.	1	1
State v. Williamsgreen ohio · 1997 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See State v. Williams , 79 Ohio St.3d 1 , 12 , 1997-Ohio-407 (" Williams I ") (applying the plain error standard to a prosecutorial misconduct claim).	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 (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti	5	2016–2022
Smith v. Phillips green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti	3	2016–2022
State v. Lang green ohio · 2011 2 sentences 2016State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 154. 190 {¶ 125} When evaluating a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). 2016State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 154. 190 {¶ 125} When evaluating a prosecutorial-misconduct claim, the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).	2	2012–2016
State v. Smith green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 2014Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14 , 470 N.E.2d 883 . {¶61} Considering the latitude granted to prosecutors and our review of the entire record, we find that Wiley’s challenge to the prosecutor’s closing argument fails to satisfy the prosecutorial misconduct standard. 2014Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14 , 470 N.E.2d 883 . {¶61} Considering the latitude granted to prosecutors and our review of the entire record, we find that Wiley’s challenge to the prosecutor’s closing argument fails to satisfy the prosecutorial misconduct standard.	2	2012–2014
State v. Howard green · 2023 1 sentence 2026See State v. Railey, 2024-Ohio-5502, ¶ 27, ¶ 51-53 (1st Dist.) (court found prosecutor engaged in misrepresentations where prosecutor misstated the nature of the DNA and Y-STR evidence in closing argument); State v. Howard, 2023-Ohio-3870 (8th Dist.) (court found that prosecutor engaged in improper conduct by repeatedly referring to defendant’s DNA and semen when there was no evidence of it); State v. Metcalf, 2012-Ohio-674 , ¶ 7, ¶ 23-27 (12th Dist.) (court found that prosecutor mischaracterized DNA and Y-STR evidence repeatedly while questioning witnesses when there was no evidence that defe	1	2026–2026
State v. Kirkland (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2020 1 sentence 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti	1	2022–2022
Darden v. Wainwright green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti 2022Rooted as it is in the right to due process of law, a prosecutorial- misconduct claim requires us to analyze “whether the prosecutor’s comments ‘ “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ ” Id., quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Kirkland.) Id., quoti	1	2022–2022
State v. Smith green ohioctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2022Hamilton No. C-060910, 2007- Ohio-6337, ¶ 45, citing State v. Smith, 130 Ohio App.3d 360, 366 , 720 N.E.2d 149 (1st Dist.1998). 2022Hamilton No. C-060910, 2007- Ohio-6337, ¶ 45, citing State v. Smith, 130 Ohio App.3d 360, 366 , 720 N.E.2d 149 (1st Dist.1998).	1	2022–2022
State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2018 2 sentences 2019Answering this question requires this court to consider (1) “whether the challenged conduct was improper” and, if so (2) “whether it prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092 , ¶ 172, citing State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 243 . 2019Answering this question requires this court to consider (1) “whether the challenged conduct was improper” and, if so (2) “whether it prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092 , ¶ 172, citing State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 243 .	1	2019–2019
State v. Belton (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2016 2 sentences 2019In analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim “the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 , 2016-Ohio-1581 , 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 125 , quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). 2019In analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim “the relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 , 2016-Ohio-1581 , 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 125 , quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).	1	2019–2019
State v. Maxwell green ohio · 2014 2 sentences 2019Answering this question requires this court to consider (1) “whether the challenged conduct was improper” and, if so (2) “whether it prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092 , ¶ 172, citing State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 243 . 2019Answering this question requires this court to consider (1) “whether the challenged conduct was improper” and, if so (2) “whether it prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092 , ¶ 172, citing State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2014-Ohio-1019 , 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 243 .	1	2019–2019
State v. Leonard green ohio · 2004 1 sentence 2018"The benchmark of the prosecutorial misconduct analysis is 'the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " *1054 State v. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2016-Ohio-1594 , 63 N.E.3d 93 , ¶ 99, quoting Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 219, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 120} "During opening statement, counsel is accorded latitude and allowed fair comment on the facts to be presented at trial." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 157.	1	2018–2018
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion) green ohio · 2016 2 sentences 2018"The benchmark of the prosecutorial misconduct analysis is 'the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " 1054 State v. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2016-Ohio-1594 , 63 N.E.3d 93 , ¶ 99, quoting Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 219, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 120} "During opening statement, counsel is accorded latitude and allowed fair comment on the facts to be presented at trial." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 157. 2018"The benchmark of the prosecutorial misconduct analysis is 'the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " 1054 State v. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2016-Ohio-1594 , 63 N.E.3d 93 , ¶ 99, quoting Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 219, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 120} "During opening statement, counsel is accorded latitude and allowed fair comment on the facts to be presented at trial." State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , 818 N.E.2d 229 , ¶ 157.	1	2018–2018
State v. Brinkley green ohio · 2005 1 sentence 2016The benchmark of the prosecutorial- misconduct analysis is “ ‘the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2005-Ohio-1507 , 824 N.E.2d 959 , ¶ 135, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).	1	2016–2016
State v. Hanna green ohio · 2002 1 sentence 2012State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 , ¶ 61. {¶65} The trial court acted appropriately in sustaining the objection and providing a curative instruction on this issue.	1	2012–2012
State v. Hanna green ohio · 2002 1 sentence 2012State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 , ¶ 61. {¶65} The trial court acted appropriately in sustaining the objection and providing a curative instruction on this issue.	1	2012–2012
State v. Johnston green ohio · 1988 1 sentence 2001State v. Kitzler (Feb. 1, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69076, unreported, citing State v. Johnston (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 48 .	1	2001–2001
State v. Maurer green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 . 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 .	1	1992–1992
State v. Jenks red ohio · 1991 2 sentences 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 . 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 .	1	1992–1992
State v. Vrona green ohioctapp · 1988 2 sentences 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 . 1992State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 ; State v. Vrona (1988), 47 Ohio App.3d 145 , 547 N.E.2d 1189 .	1	1992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.04 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.22 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.145 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.06 (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

WA 175 (1985–2026) CA 79 (1973–2026) KS 69 (2001–2025) IN 25 (1996–2025) OH 18 (1992–2026) UT 18 (1992–2024) IA 17 (1986–2026) PA 15 (2012–2025) NM 12 (2009–2024) CT 11 (1995–2017) TX 10 (2012–2025) CO 10 (2017–2026) WY 8 (1998–2025) NV 7 (1986–2021) ID 6 (2010–2025) MI 6 (2008–2025) MN 6 (2001–2019) AZ 6 (1998–2025) DE 6 (2014–2026) TN 6 (1999–2020) IL 5 (2020–2022) HI 4 (2003–2025) OK 4 (2006–2023) FL 3 (2006–2017) SD 3 (2014–2026) NE 2 (2016–2018) VI 2 (2011–2014) AR 2 (2000–2020)

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