obvious error in Ohio

2026Pickaway App. No. 25CA16 8 {¶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 outcome of the [proceedings].’” 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 althoug

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

2026Pickaway App. No. 25CA16 8 {¶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 outcome of the [proceedings].’” 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 althoug

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 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 . {¶82} The plain error doctrine is not, however, readily invoked in civil cases.

2024For the plain error doctrine to Washington App. Nos. 23CA7 and 23CA8 37 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 outcome of the trial.’ ” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.

2024For the plain error doctrine to Washington App. Nos. 23CA7 and 23CA8 37 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 outcome of the trial.’ ” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.

2026“Mere disagreement with this Court's logic and conclusions does not support an application for reconsideration.” State v. Carosiello, 2018-Ohio-860 , ¶ 12 (7th Dist.). {¶7} “‘Rather, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law.’” State v. Chapman, 2021-Ohio- 2015, ¶ 3 (7th Dist.), quoting D.G. v. M.G.G., 2019-Ohio-1190 , ¶ 2 (7th Dist.) (citing State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336 (11th Dist. 1996)). {¶8} Appellant alleges a number of er

2025“Mere disagreement with this Court's logic and conclusions does not support an application for reconsideration.” State v. Carosiello, 2018-Ohio-860 , ¶ 12 (7th Dist.). “‘Rather, App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law.’” State v. Chapman, 2021-Ohio-2015, ¶ 3 (7th Dist.), quoting D.G. v. M.G.G., 2019-Ohio-1190 , ¶ 2 (7th Dist.) (citing State v. Owens, 112 Ohio App.3d 334, 336 (11th Dist. 1996)). {¶3} Appellant contends we applied the wron

2026The general test regarding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A)(1)(a) “is whether the motion for reconsideration calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for our consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by us when it should have been.” State v. Marriott, 2021-Ohio- 2845, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.), quoting Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140, 143 (10th Dist. 1982).

2026Motions to Reconsider {¶ 2} The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been Matthews v. Matthews, 5 Ohio App.3d 140 , 450 N.E.2d 278 (10th Dist.1981). {¶ 3} The State's motion calls to our attention an error of law.

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

2023Cuyahoga, JACKSON, 22CA12, 22CA13 22 2015-Ohio-4279 , 45 N.E.3d 661 , ¶ 9 (appellate court retains discretion to consider forfeited argument); see Rosales-Mireles v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1897, 1904 , 201 L.Ed.2d 376 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶35} 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” 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

2018Id. at ¶ 76. " 'Plain error consists of an obvious error or defect in the trial proceedings that affects a substantial right.' " Williams , 2017-Ohio-5598 , 93 N.E.3d 449 , at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Lindsey , 87 Ohio St.3d 479 , 482, 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000).

2018Id. at ¶ 76. " 'Plain error consists of an obvious error or defect in the trial proceedings that affects a substantial right.' " Williams , 2017-Ohio-5598 , 93 N.E.3d 449 , at ¶ 28, quoting State v. Lindsey , 87 Ohio St.3d 479 , 482, 721 N.E.2d 995 (2000).

2022Crim.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.” 14 ROSS, 21CA3742 Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 O

2022Crim.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.” 14 ROSS, 21CA3742 Crim.R. 52(B) thus permits a court to recognize plain error if the party claiming error establishes (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred, (2) that the error is a plain or “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 O

2025A party asserting plain error must show an obvious error that "'seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity . . . [and] legitimacy of the underlying judicial proceedings.'" Richards v. Newberry, 2015- Ohio-1932, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus.

2025But the plain-error doctrine is disfavored in the civil context, and we may find plain error “only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances,” where the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123 (1997). {¶40} The party asserting plain error bears the burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court made an obvious error that affected the party’s substantial rights.

2026Case No. 25 MA 0046 –3– {¶6} “The test generally applied upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration in the court of appeals is whether the motion calls to the attention of the court an obvious error in its decision, or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been.” Columbus v. Hodge, 37 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist.1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶7} Appellant raises five proposed errors with our Opinion.

2025Here, there is no reliable and probative evidence to support a conclusion that KIN, Inc. was in fact authorized by the landlord to file the complaints. {¶38} In sum, KIN, Inc. failed to carry its burden of establishing standing to contest the valuations. {¶39} KIN, Inc.’s first and second assignments of error are without merit. {¶40} In its third assignment of error, KIN, Inc. contends the BTA erred by denying its motion for reconsideration because it did not fully consider the email from the landlord’s legal counsel to the county auditor and/or the operation of agency principles. {¶41} “The t

2025Even if we find that there was an obvious error, “it must have affected a substantial right” such that the error “‘affected the outcome of the trial.’” Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2008R. 52(B), the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights. * * * Even if the defendant satisfies this burden, an appellate court has discretion to disregard the error and should correct it only to `"prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" Id. at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 * * *, *Page 14 quoting State v. Long (1979), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , at paragraph three of syllabus." (Emphasis in original.) {¶ 38} Although the trial court's failure to include the written jury instructions with the "papers o

2026Standard of Review {¶7} “A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Raines, 2024-Ohio-3236, ¶ 55 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 .

2024“A party asserting plain error must demonstrate that an obvious error occurred and that there is a reasonable probability it resulted in prejudice, meaning it affected the outcome of the proceeding.” Id., citing State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . “‘It is well settled that a sentence that is contrary to law is plain error and an appellate court may review it for plain error.’” State v. Price, 2024-Ohio-1641, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Burrell, 2024- Ohio-638, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.). {¶13} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) states: If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of mul

2019Although generally a court will not consider alleged errors that were not brought to the attention to the trial court, Crim.R. 52(B) provides that the court may consider errors affecting substantial rights even though they were not brought No. 18AP-319 and 18AP-328 9 to the attention of the trial court. " 'Plain error is an obvious error * * * that affects a substantial right.' " State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 , 244, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 108 , quoting State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 518 (1997).

2008State v. Rawls , Franklin App. No. 03AP-41, 2004-Ohio-836 , at ¶ 21 ; State v. Riley , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1091, 2007-Ohio-4409 , at ¶ 4 ; State v. Mitchell , Cuyahoga App. No. 88977, 2007-Ohio-6190 , at ¶ 84 . "`Plain error is an obvious error * * * that affects a substantial right.'" State v. Yarbrough , 95 Ohio St.2d 227 , 2002-Ohio-2126 , at ¶ 108 , quoting State v. Keith (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 514 , 518 .

2025Plain error is an obvious error or defect in the trial court proceedings, affecting substantial rights, which, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial court clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barton, 2004-Ohio-3058, ¶ 46 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 13 ; Crim.

2006"Plain error" is an obvious error or defect in the trial court proceedings, affecting substantial rights, which, "but for the error, the outcome of the trial court clearly would have been otherwise." See State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 13 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 . {¶ 22} It is according to these standards that we review appellant's assignments of error. {¶ 23} First, appellant asserts that the confidential informant gave inconsistent testimony when one compares the informant's testimony at the first trial to the testimony in the second trial as it relates to conversations with people ot

2024“Plain error is an obvious error * * * that affects a substantial right.” State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 , 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 108 . {¶ 32} The instruction mirrored the Ohio Jury Instructions for other acts and was tailored to the facts of the case: Evidence was received about the commission of acts other than the offenses with which the defendant is charged in this trial.

2019Although generally a court will not consider alleged errors that were not brought to the attention to the trial court, Crim.R. 52(B) provides that the court may consider errors affecting substantial rights even though they were not brought No. 18AP-319 and 18AP-328 9 to the attention of the trial court. " 'Plain error is an obvious error * * * that affects a substantial right.' " State v. Yarbrough, 95 Ohio St.3d 227 , 244, 2002-Ohio-2126, ¶ 108 , quoting State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514, 518 (1997).

2026Rather, “App.R. 26(A)(1) provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law.” Id. {¶9} Appellant argues he only need show the trial court’s decision was unreasonable to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

2026Rather, “App.R. 26(A)(1) provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law.” Id. {¶17} Appellant’s arguments for reconsideration, which are the same arguments advanced in her merits brief, are largely founded on the admissibility of Appellee’s evidence rather than the weight afforded to it by the trial court.

2020To prevail under the plain error standard, Shutway “must demonstrate both that there was an obvious error in the proceedings and that but for the error, the outcome of [his] trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Satterfield, 2017-Ohio-5616 , 94 N.E.3d 171, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044 , 781 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 61-62 . {¶ 12} We find no obvious error with regard to the jury verdict forms at issue. -6- “ ‘[W]hen a court submits a verdict form containing a statutory description of the offense, it commits reversible error if the description omits

2014“To prevail under the plain error standard, an appellant must demonstrate both that there was an obvious error in the proceedings and that but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” Id., citing State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044 , 781 N.E.2d 88 ; State v. Turner, 2d Dist.

2020Plain error is “an obvious error * * * which, if allowed to stand, would have a substantial adverse impact on the integrity of and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” State v. Bowman, 144 Ohio App.3d 179, 190 , 759 N.E.2d 856 (12th Dist.2001), citing State v. Craft, 52 Ohio App.2d 1, 7 , 367 N.E.2d 1221 (1st Dist.1977). {¶ 61} In arguing plain error, Cantrill requests review of the record without articulating how the trial court’s mention of an unrelated offense, lacking specific details, affected the outcome of her trial.

2020Plain error is “an obvious error * * * which, if allowed to stand, would have a substantial adverse impact on the integrity of and public confidence in judicial proceedings.” State v. Bowman, 144 Ohio App.3d 179, 190 , 759 N.E.2d 856 (12th Dist.2001), citing State v. Craft, 52 Ohio App.2d 1, 7 , 367 N.E.2d 1221 (1st Dist.1977). {¶ 61} In arguing plain error, Cantrill requests review of the record without articulating how the trial court’s mention of an unrelated offense, lacking specific details, affected the outcome of her trial.