touchstone of due process analysis in Ohio

2007Again, because appellant's trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's statements or request any kind of curative action at trial, we review this assignment for plain error only. {¶ 24} "When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that `the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.'" State v. Rogers , Fayette App. No. CA2004-06-014, 2005-Ohio-6693 , ¶ 30 , quoting State v. Hill , 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 ; Smith v. Phillips

2005"Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 30} When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that "the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 , quoting Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 2

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

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

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

2021For the reasons outlined below, we find that each of Armstrong- Carter’s prosecutorial misconduct claims lacks merit. {¶ 70} “When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, our inquiry is twofold: we must first decide whether the prosecutor's actions were improper, and if so, we consider whether the conduct prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 115 , citing State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 228 . “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairn

2021For the reasons outlined below, we find that each of Armstrong- Carter’s prosecutorial misconduct claims lacks merit. {¶ 70} “When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, our inquiry is twofold: we must first decide whether the prosecutor's actions were improper, and if so, we consider whether the conduct prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 115 , citing State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 228 . “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairn

2021For the reasons outlined below, we find that each of Armstrong- Carter’s prosecutorial misconduct claims lacks merit. {¶ 70} “When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, our inquiry is twofold: we must first decide whether the prosecutor's actions were improper, and if so, we consider whether the conduct prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 115 , citing State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 228 . “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis * * * is the fairn

2021The touchstone of due process analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Id., quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2019The touchstone of due process analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Id., quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2018State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 111 , 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990); Crim.R. 52.

2003The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct "is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Landrum , 53 Ohio St.3d at 112 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 947 . {¶ 208} The propriety of evidence regarding uncharged crimes and other bad acts, the state's alleged vouching for the credibility of its witnesses, and the state's comments about Skatzes' prior conviction are discussed under other assignments of error.

2007Again, because appellant's trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's statements or request any kind of curative action at trial, we review this assignment for plain error only. {¶ 24} "When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that `the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.'" State v. Rogers , Fayette App. No. CA2004-06-014, 2005-Ohio-6693 , ¶ 30 , quoting State v. Hill , 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 ; Smith v. Phillips

2005"Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 30} When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that "the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 , quoting Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 2

2004State v. Thayer (1931), 124 Ohio St. 1 ; DR 7-106(C)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code").

2003State v. Thayer (1931), 124 Ohio St. 1 ; DR 7-106(C)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code").

2000The Constitution does not guarantee “an error-free, perfect trial.” United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508 , 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96, 106 .

2000The Constitution does not guarantee “an error-free, perfect trial.” United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499, 508 , 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96, 106 .

1992Accord State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 288 , 528 N.E.2d 542, 556-557 ; State v. Johnson (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 96, 102 , 545 N.E.2d 636, 642 .

1992Accord State v. DePew (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 275, 288 , 528 N.E.2d 542, 556-557 ; State v. Johnson (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 96, 102 , 545 N.E.2d 636, 642 .

2026The test for prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments “is whether the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 (1984), citing United States v. Dorr, 636 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1981). “ ‘The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the No. 25AP-255 15 fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Wilkerson, 2002-Ohio- 5416, ¶ 38 (10th Dist.), quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982).

2020“Evidence is material if there is a ‘ “reasonable probability” ’ that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense.” State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966 , 16 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 153 , quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).

2020“Evidence is material if there is a ‘ “reasonable probability” ’ that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense.” State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966 , 16 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 153 , quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).

2020Hamilton No. C-180091, 2019-Ohio-4862 , ¶ 64. -20- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 61} In Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States noted that both Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), were past decisions of the court demonstrating “that the touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith at 219. {¶ 62} Brady involved the

2020Hamilton No. C-180091, 2019-Ohio-4862 , ¶ 64. -20- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 61} In Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States noted that both Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), were past decisions of the court demonstrating “that the touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith at 219. {¶ 62} Brady involved the

2020Hamilton No. C-180091, 2019-Ohio-4862 , ¶ 64. -20- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 61} In Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States noted that both Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), were past decisions of the court demonstrating “that the touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith at 219. {¶ 62} Brady involved the

2020Hamilton No. C-180091, 2019-Ohio-4862 , ¶ 64. -20- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 61} In Smith, the Supreme Court of the United States noted that both Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), were past decisions of the court demonstrating “that the touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith at 219. {¶ 62} Brady involved the

2020“Evidence is material if there is a ‘ “reasonable probability” ’ that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense.” State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966 , 16 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 153 , quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).

2020“Evidence is material if there is a ‘ “reasonable probability” ’ that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed to the defense.” State v. Osie, 140 Ohio St.3d 131 , 2014-Ohio-2966 , 16 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 153 , quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).

2009State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Dixon (Mar. 13, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 68338. {¶ 56} The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.

2009State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 ; State v. Dixon (Mar. 13, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 68338. {¶ 56} The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.

2007Again, because appellant's trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's statements or request any kind of curative action at trial, we review this assignment for plain error only. {¶ 24} "When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that `the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.'" State v. Rogers , Fayette App. No. CA2004-06-014, 2005-Ohio-6693 , ¶ 30 , quoting State v. Hill , 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 ; Smith v. Phillips

2005"Notice of plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 30} When reviewing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate courts must consider that "the touchstone of due-process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195 , 203 , 1996-Ohio-222 , quoting Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 2

2004"The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 , certiorari denied (1984), 465 U.S. 1027 , 104 S.Ct. 1287 , 79 L.Ed.2d 689 .

2004"The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 , certiorari denied (1984), 465 U.S. 1027 , 104 S.Ct. 1287 , 79 L.Ed.2d 689 .

2004"The touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 , certiorari denied (1984), 465 U.S. 1027 , 104 S.Ct. 1287 , 79 L.Ed.2d 689 .

2003No. 99CA007431, at 13-14, appeal not allowed (2002), 91 Ohio St.3d 1480 , quoting Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 .