plain or obvious error in Ohio

2025To prevail under a plain error analysis, it must be shown that “but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Davis, 2010-Ohio-5706, ¶ 29 . {¶ 19} As previously discussed, the plea agreement in this case required Combs to plead guilty to one count of strangulation and nine counts of intimidation of a crime victim or witness.

2024Accordingly, Galluzzo waived this argument he has raised for the first time on appeal, and we will only review this issue for plain error. {¶ 23} When plain error is contemplated, “we require a showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Davis, 127 Ohio St.3d 268 , 2010-Ohio-5706 , 939 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 29 .

2009For there to be plain error, there must be a plain or obvious error that “affect[s] ‘substantial rights,’ which the court has interpreted to mean but for the error, ‘the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.’ ” State v. Litreal, 170 Ohio App.3d 670 , 2006-Ohio-5416 , 868 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 .

2009For there to be plain error, there must be a plain or obvious error that “affect[s] ‘substantial rights,’ which the court has interpreted to mean but for the error, ‘the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.’ ” State v. Litreal, 170 Ohio App.3d 670 , 2006-Ohio-5416 , 868 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 11 , quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 .

2018"The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it." Id. , citing State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , ¶ 17. {¶ 31} In this case, we do not find that the phrase "such dog" in R.C.G.O. 91.50(D)(2) presents a plain or obvious error that warrants a reversal of Smith's conviction on grounds of vagueness. "[W]hen a statute is challenged under the due process doctrine of vagueness, a court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions and (2) contains reasonably clear guidelines to prevent official arbit

2018"The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it." Id. , citing State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , ¶ 17. {¶ 31} In this case, we do not find that the phrase "such dog" in R.C.G.O. 91.50(D)(2) presents a plain or obvious error that warrants a reversal of Smith's conviction on grounds of vagueness. "[W]hen a statute is challenged under the due process doctrine of vagueness, a court must determine whether the enactment (1) provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions and (2) contains reasonably clear guidelines to prevent official arbit

2008For there to be plain error, there must be a plain or obvious error that "affect[s] `substantial rights,' which the court has interpreted to mean `but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.'" State v. Litreal , 170 Ohio App.3d 670 , 2006-Ohio-5416 , 868 N.E.2d 1018 , at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 .

2008For there to be plain error, there must be a plain or obvious error that "affect[s] `substantial rights,' which the court has interpreted to mean `but for the error, the outcome of the trial [proceeding] clearly would have been otherwise.'" State v. Litreal , 170 Ohio App.3d 670 , 2006-Ohio-5416 , 868 N.E.2d 1018 , at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 27 , 2002-Ohio-68 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 .

2025“An appellate court has discretion to notice plain error and therefore ‘is not required to correct it.’ ” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-3051, ¶ 17 , quoting Rogers at ¶ 23 .

2022“Under this review, the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id. quoting State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2024Crim.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.” “The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” Id.

2019“The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” Id.

2023“Under this review, the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id. quoting State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2022"An appellate court has discretion to notice plain error and therefore 'is not required to correct it.' " Id., quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio- 2459, ¶ 23. {¶ 114} Appellant argues that but for obvious error in the trial court presiding over both the Crim.R 16(F) hearing and the bench trial, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

2026The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which is binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Interpreting this amendment, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the “admission of an out-of-court statement of a witness who does not appear at trial is prohibited by the Confrontation Clause if the statement is testimonial unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” State v.

2024Because no objection was made a trial, the court reviewed for plain error, “i.e., that there was a plain or obvious error that affected the outcome of the trial and resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id.

2024Here, we do not find plain error. {¶ 16} First, this case was tried to the bench, and “a judge in a bench trial is presumed not to have considered improper evidence in reaching a verdict,” but rather is presumed to have “considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.’” State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016-Ohio-1595 , 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 39 , quoting State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 384 , 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987). 6. {¶ 17} Second, assuming for purposes of argument that both of the above comments const

2024Here, we do not find plain error. {¶ 16} First, this case was tried to the bench, and “a judge in a bench trial is presumed not to have considered improper evidence in reaching a verdict,” but rather is presumed to have “considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.’” State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016-Ohio-1595 , 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 39 , quoting State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 384 , 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987). 6. {¶ 17} Second, assuming for purposes of argument that both of the above comments const

2024Here, we do not find plain error. {¶ 16} First, this case was tried to the bench, and “a judge in a bench trial is presumed not to have considered improper evidence in reaching a verdict,” but rather is presumed to have “considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.’” State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016-Ohio-1595 , 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 39 , quoting State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 384 , 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987). 6. {¶ 17} Second, assuming for purposes of argument that both of the above comments const

2024Here, we do not find plain error. {¶ 16} First, this case was tried to the bench, and “a judge in a bench trial is presumed not to have considered improper evidence in reaching a verdict,” but rather is presumed to have “considered only the relevant, material, and competent evidence in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary.’” State v. Arnold, 147 Ohio St.3d 138 , 2016-Ohio-1595 , 62 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 39 , quoting State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 384 , 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987). 6. {¶ 17} Second, assuming for purposes of argument that both of the above comments const

2023State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74 , 2020-Ohio-6699 , 172 N.E.2d 75 , ¶91. {¶66} The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the plain error standard of review to be utilized by appellate courts, Under this standard, the defendant bears the burden of “showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014- Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2023State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74 , 2020-Ohio-6699 , 172 N.E.2d 75 , ¶91. {¶66} The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the plain error standard of review to be utilized by appellate courts, Under this standard, the defendant bears the burden of “showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014- Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2023Cuyahoga No. 111099, 2022-Ohio-3038, ¶ 18 , citing State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 9 . {¶28} 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.” Under the plain-error standard, “the defendant bears the burden of ‘showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 20

2023“The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” (Citation omitted.) Id.

2022(Assertions of structural error do not preclude an appellate court from applying the plain- error standard when the accused has failed to object.) See also State v. McAlpin, __Ohio St.3d__, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 . ("[T]he plain-error rule still applies to errors that were never objected to at trial, even if those errors can be classified as structural."). {¶ 113} Under the plain error standard of review, the accused bears the burden of " 'showing that but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding No. 21AP-329 36 would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to corr

2019To demonstrate plain error, it must be shown that “but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id., citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Davis, 127 Ohio St.3d 268 , 2010-Ohio-5706 , 939 N.E.2d -28- 147, ¶ 29.