12 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 4 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. McAlpingreen2 sentences2024To show plain error, Knuff must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial,” (emphasis added in Rogers) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567, 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22. {¶ 118} Knuff cannot demonstrate error with respect to the testimony about which he now complains. 2024To show plain error, Knuff must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial,” (emphasis added in Rogers) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567, 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22. {¶ 118} Knuff cannot demonstrate error with respect to the testimony about which he now complains. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2024To show plain error, Knuff must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial,” (emphasis added in Rogers) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567, 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22. {¶ 118} Knuff cannot demonstrate error with respect to the testimony about which he now complains. 2024To show plain error, Knuff must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial,” (emphasis added in Rogers) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567, 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22. {¶ 118} Knuff cannot demonstrate error with respect to the testimony about which he now complains. | 1 | 1 |
McMaster v. Akron Health Departmentgreen2 sentences2021See Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, at ¶ 24 , quoting McMaster, 189 Ohio App.3d 222 , 2010-Ohio-3851 , at ¶ 20. 2021See Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, at ¶ 24 , quoting McMaster, 189 Ohio App.3d 222 , 2010-Ohio-3851 , at ¶ 20. {¶67} Lastly, Father cites to R.C. 3119.30(B)(1) and argues that the trial court failed to perform the proper analysis regarding the rebuttable presumption that Mother, as the child support obligee, is to provide health insurance. | 1 | 1 |
Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc. v. Modern Auto Sales, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, at ¶ 24 , quoting McMaster, 189 Ohio App.3d 222 , 2010-Ohio-3851 , at ¶ 20. 2021See Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, at ¶ 24 , quoting McMaster, 189 Ohio App.3d 222 , 2010-Ohio-3851 , at ¶ 20. {¶67} Lastly, Father cites to R.C. 3119.30(B)(1) and argues that the trial court failed to perform the proper analysis regarding the rebuttable presumption that Mother, as the child support obligee, is to provide health insurance. | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Tennesseegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2004-Ohio-7007 , 824 N.E.2d 504 , ¶ 89. {¶ 101} The United States Supreme Court has described victim-impact testimony in a capital case as “evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 817 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). 2016See State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2004-Ohio-7007 , 824 N.E.2d 504 , ¶ 89. {¶ 101} The United States Supreme Court has described victim-impact testimony in a capital case as “evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 817 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Woods, 8 Ohio App.3d 56, 61 , 455 N.E.2d 1289 (8th Dist.1982) (defendant cannot be excluded from testimonial proceedings where defendant’s knowledge might assist counsel). {¶35} In light of the above, the second assignment of error is overruled. {¶36} In the third assignment of error, Shropshire claims that it was improper for the trial court to discuss the jury’s verdict with the jury before the court rendered its own verdict on the weapons charge.1 {¶37} We again review this claim for plain error because Shropshire did not object to the trial court’s action. 2016See State v. Woods, 8 Ohio App.3d 56, 61 , 455 N.E.2d 1289 (8th Dist.1982) (defendant cannot be excluded from testimonial proceedings where defendant’s knowledge might assist counsel). {¶35} In light of the above, the second assignment of error is overruled. {¶36} In the third assignment of error, Shropshire claims that it was improper for the trial court to discuss the jury’s verdict with the jury before the court rendered its own verdict on the weapons charge.1 {¶37} We again review this claim for plain error because Shropshire did not object to the trial court’s action. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2004-Ohio-7007 , 824 N.E.2d 504 , ¶ 89. {¶ 101} The United States Supreme Court has described victim-impact testimony in a capital case as “evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 817 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). 2016See State v. Cunningham, 105 Ohio St.3d 197 , 2004-Ohio-7007 , 824 N.E.2d 504 , ¶ 89. {¶ 101} The United States Supreme Court has described victim-impact testimony in a capital case as “evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 817 , 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trimblegreen2 sentences2014See State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 , 2009-Ohio-2961 , 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 61 (reviewing change-of-venue claim for plain error when defendant had waived the argument). 2014See State v. Trimble, 122 Ohio St.3d 297 , 2009-Ohio-2961 , 911 N.E.2d 242, ¶ 61 (reviewing change-of-venue claim for plain error when defendant had waived the argument). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kiddergreen1 sentence2002See Kidder , supra. Accordingly, we overrule this assignment of error. {¶ 95} The tenth assignment of error states: {¶ 96} "DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED TO BE CONVICTED FOR THE INTERVENING ACT OF ANOTHER." {¶ 97} Jones complains that in giving the following instruction on intervening cause, the court effectively amended the statute and the indictment: {¶ 98} "The defendants are responsible for the natural consequences of the defendants' unlawful act or failure to act even though the physical harm to Warren Culbreath was also caused by an intervening act or failur | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mammone (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023To prevail on plain-error review, [the defendant] must establish both that misconduct occurred and that but for the misconduct, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 111 . 2023To prevail on plain-error review, [the defendant] must establish both that misconduct occurred and that but for the misconduct, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 111 . | 2 | 2016–2023 |
State v. Loza
green
2 sentences2023Greene No. 2007-CA-51, 2008-Ohio- 2900, ¶ 42, citing State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 78 , 641 N.E.2d 1082 (1994). {¶ 32} “If a defendant failed to object to the alleged misconduct below, however, we review the claim for plain error. 2023Greene No. 2007-CA-51, 2008-Ohio- 2900, ¶ 42, citing State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 78 , 641 N.E.2d 1082 (1994). {¶ 32} “If a defendant failed to object to the alleged misconduct below, however, we review the claim for plain error. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Ohio’s criminal law distinguishes between errors that are objected to by a defendant at trial and those that are not; “[w]hen the defendant forfeits the right to assert an error on appeal by failing to bring it to the trial court’s attention in the first instance, an appellate court applies plain-error review.” State v. Jones, 160 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2020-Ohio-3051 , 156 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 17 ; Crim.R. 52. 2022Ohio’s criminal law distinguishes between errors that are objected to by a defendant at trial and those that are not; “[w]hen the defendant forfeits the right to assert an error on appeal by failing to bring it to the trial court’s attention in the first instance, an appellate court applies plain-error review.” State v. Jones, 160 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2020-Ohio-3051 , 156 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 17 ; Crim.R. 52. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
green
2 sentences2016State 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). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lott
green
2 sentences2016Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 164 , 555 N.E.2d 293 . {¶ 71} Count 6 of the indictment alleged that Spaulding committed domestic violence against Singleton on December 15, 2011. 2016Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d at 164 , 555 N.E.2d 293 . {¶ 71} Count 6 of the indictment alleged that Spaulding committed domestic violence against Singleton on December 15, 2011. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Boston
green
2 sentences2016State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 128 , 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989). “[I]n our system of justice it is the fact finder, not the so-called expert or lay witnesses, who bears the burden of assessing the credibility and veracity of witnesses.” State v. Pizzillo, 7th Dist. 2016State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 128 , 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989). “[I]n our system of justice it is the fact finder, not the so-called expert or lay witnesses, who bears the burden of assessing the credibility and veracity of witnesses.” State v. Pizzillo, 7th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Diar
green
2 sentences2016State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 70 . b. 2016State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 70 . b. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lang
green
2 sentences2016State 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). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.
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.