Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
481 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2026 79 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2026Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “ ‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). 2026Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “ ‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 60 | 383 |
State v. Lottgreen2 sentences2019“A reviewing court is to consider the trial record as a whole, and is to ignore harmless errors ‘including most constitutional violations.’” State v. Overholt, 9th Dist. Medina No. 02CA0108-M, 2003-Ohio-3500 , ¶ 46, quoting State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 166 (1990). 10 “The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” Diar at ¶ 140, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶24} Mr. Puryear challenges several remarks made by the prosecutor in her closing argument, including: (1) “So perhaps we would have more information had 2017The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 166 (1990), quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶28} After reviewing the entire record, we determine that the prosecutor’s comments did not warrant a mistrial. | 7 | 13 |
State v. Lozadagreen2 sentences2002Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it failed to grant his motion to suppress because "the trooper failed to articulate a reasonable suspicion for stopping the car." The touchstone of analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of a particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." State v. Lozada (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 74 , 78 . 2001"The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of a particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." State v. Lozada (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 74 , 78 . | 4 | 8 |
State v. Twyfordgreen2 sentences2018The touchstone of this analysis "is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Id. quoting Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶ 15} The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness. 2018The touchstone of this analysis "is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." Id. at 355, 763 N.E.2d 122 , quoting Smith v. Phillips , 455 U.S. 209 , 219, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 3 | 13 |
| State v. Plebangreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Hicksgreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Smith, 2000- Ohio-450, ¶ 87, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶87} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[i]t is improper for an attorney to express his personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness . . . .” Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14 . 2026“The touchstone of analysis PAGE 25 OF 35 ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Smith, 2000- Ohio-450, ¶ 87, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶92} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[i]t is improper for an attorney to express his personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness . . . .” Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14 . | 2 | 54 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2023“Courts must exclude evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth 6 Case No. 2022-A-0070 Amendment.” State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 181 , citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (extending the exclusionary rule to the states). “‘The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove incentive from the police to violate the Fourth Amendment.’” State v. Eggleston, 11th Dist. Trumbull, 2015-Ohio-958 , 29 N.E.3d 23 , ¶ 17, quoting State v. Casey, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 2023“Courts must exclude evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth 6 Case No. 2022-A-0070 Amendment.” State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 181 , citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (extending the exclusionary rule to the states). “‘The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove incentive from the police to violate the Fourth Amendment.’” State v. Eggleston, 11th Dist. Trumbull, 2015-Ohio-958 , 29 N.E.3d 23 , ¶ 17, quoting State v. Casey, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ | 2 | 13 |
State v. Cornwellgreen2 sentences2022“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Cornwell, 86 Ohio St.3d 560, 570-571 (1999), quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940, 947 (1982). {¶58} “‘To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that a reasonable probability exists that, but for the prosecutor’s improper remarks, the results of the proceeding would have been different. 2022The touchstone of our analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); State v. Cornwell, 86 Ohio St.3d 560 , 570- 571, 715 N.E.2d 1144 (1999). 1. | 2 | 11 |
State v. Pickens (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2019The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014-Ohio-5445 , 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶126} Under this assignment of error, Lavender’s entire argument is that “[t]his trial had numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. 2019The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014-Ohio-5445 , 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 110 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶126} Under this assignment of error, Lavender’s entire argument is that “[t]his trial had numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct. | 2 | 5 |
| State v. Hamadgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Lozagreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2024According to Reed, the prosecution then exacerbated its misconduct during closing argument by stating there was no evidence to support Reed’s theory and that the trial court would not be giving an instruction on self-defense. {¶ 59} “The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused.” State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 420 (2000), citing State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 (1984). -31- “The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” Id., q 2022“However, the touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” Id., citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 1 | 39 |
State v. Keenangreen2 sentences2024State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . {¶48} Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶49} If any misconduct occurred, the court must consider the effect it had on the jury “in the context of the entire trial.” State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 , 613 N.E.2d 20 2024State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . {¶48} Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶49} If any misconduct occurred, the court must consider the effect it had on the jury “in the context of the entire trial.” State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 , 613 N.E.2d 20 | 1 | 17 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2023“Courts must exclude evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth 6 Case No. 2022-A-0070 Amendment.” State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 181 , citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (extending the exclusionary rule to the states). “‘The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove incentive from the police to violate the Fourth Amendment.’” State v. Eggleston, 11th Dist. Trumbull, 2015-Ohio-958 , 29 N.E.3d 23 , ¶ 17, quoting State v. Casey, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 2023“Courts must exclude evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Fourth 6 Case No. 2022-A-0070 Amendment.” State v. Adams, 144 Ohio St.3d 429 , 2015-Ohio-3954 , 45 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 181 , citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (extending the exclusionary rule to the states). “‘The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove incentive from the police to violate the Fourth Amendment.’” State v. Eggleston, 11th Dist. Trumbull, 2015-Ohio-958 , 29 N.E.3d 23 , ¶ 17, quoting State v. Casey, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ | 1 | 12 |
State v. Underwoodgreen2 sentences2017“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Underwood, 73 Ohio App.3d 834, 840-841 (4th Dist.1991), quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 (1982). {¶126} Prosecutorial misconduct is generally not grounds for reversal unless it so taints the proceedings as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. 2008The touchstone of analysis is "the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor." State v. Underwood (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 834 , 840-841 , 598 N.E.2d 822 , 826 , citing Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209 , 219 , 102 S. Ct. 940 , 947 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 , 87-88 . | 1 | 11 |
State v. Hannagreen2 sentences2023“However, the touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 , ¶ 61, citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). 2023“However, the touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 , ¶ 61, citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 1 | 10 |
State v. Landrumgreen2 sentences1995In evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct, “we must remember that ‘the touchstone of analysis “ * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” * * * The Constitution does not guarantee an “error free, perfect trial.”’” State v. Hall (Aug. 3, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 13805, 1994 WL 409639 , unreported, quoting State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 112 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 718 . 1995In evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct, “we must remember that ‘the touchstone of analysis “ * * * is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” * * * The Constitution does not guarantee an “error free, perfect trial.”’” State v. Hall (Aug. 3, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 13805, 1994 WL 409639 , unreported, quoting State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 112 , 559 N.E.2d 710, 718 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Braxtongreen2 sentences2016“Again, the touchstone of this analysis ‘“is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”’” Siefer at ¶ 46, quoting State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2002-Ohio-6658, ¶ 140 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 (1982). {¶84} In determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks were improper and if they prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights, “an appellate court should consider several factors: (1) the nature of the remarks, (2) whether an objection was made by counsel, (3) whether corrective instructions were given by the court, and ( 2014“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” Id. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026“A forfeited error is not reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceedings and reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-1081, ¶ 50 (8th Dist.). “‘The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused.”’ State v. Newman, 2020-Ohio-658 , ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Smith, 87 Ohio St.3d 424, 442 (2000). “‘The touchstone of analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’”” Id., quoting Smith 2026“A forfeited error is not reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceedings and reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-1081, ¶ 50 (8th Dist.). “‘The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused.”’ State v. Newman, 2020-Ohio-658 , ¶ 7 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Smith, 87 Ohio St.3d 424, 442 (2000). “‘The touchstone of analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’”” Id., quoting Smith | 1 | 5 |
Donnelly v. DeChristoforogreen2 sentences2020The touchstone of the analysis " 'is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " Id., quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶ 52} When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, " '[t]he relevant question is whether the prosecutors' comments "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." ' " State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 257 , quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974). 2018The touchstone of our analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶9} Each instance represented an isolated comment in a trial that spanned several days. “[I]solated comments by a prosecutor are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.” State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 , 2004-Ohio-6548 , 819 N.E.2d 1047 , ¶ 106, citing Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 647 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Apanovitchgreen2 sentences2026“The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the conduct complained of deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 441-442 (2001), citing State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 24 (1987). 2023Thus, “prosecutorial misconduct alone does not require a new trial” 14 and “[t]he conduct of a prosecuting attorney during trial cannot be made a ground of error unless the conduct deprives defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Hamad, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2017-T-0108, 2019-Ohio-2664, ¶ 123 ; State v. Apanovitch, 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 24 , 514 N.E.2d 394 (1987). {¶47} Initially, Light emphasizes that the prosecutor sought to admit evidence of “prior bad acts” to establish Brittany’s fear of Light, which the court denied and prohibited. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Underwoodgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Gibsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Darden v. Wainwrightgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Andrewsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Widmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Buckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Leflore County, Mississippigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Goldblumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. 0.376 Acres of Landgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stevenson, 2007-Ca-51 (6-13-2008)green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. 68.94 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Kent County, State of Delaware, and Sally A. Dickerson, Trusteegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Yebangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Helen Latimore v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank, Marcia Lundberg, and Ed Kernbauergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bate Land Co. v. Bate Land & Timber LLC (In Re Bate Land & Timber LLC)green | 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. Gapen
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 98725, 2013-Ohio-4372, ¶ 99 , quoting State v. Tumbleson, 105 Ohio App.3d 693, 699 , 664 N.E.2d 1318 (12th Dist.1995). “‘The touchstone of analysis is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 , 2004- Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047 , ¶ 92, quoting, Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). 2023Cuyahoga No. 98725, 2013-Ohio-4372, ¶ 99 , quoting State v. Tumbleson, 105 Ohio App.3d 693, 699 , 664 N.E.2d 1318 (12th Dist.1995). “‘The touchstone of analysis is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Gapen, 104 Ohio St.3d 358 , 2004- Ohio-6548, 819 N.E.2d 1047 , ¶ 92, quoting, Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 42 | 2005–2023 |
State v. Diar
green
2 sentences2023“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio- 6266, ¶ 140, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶16} Here, the prosecutor stated during a pretrial that the delay in the juvenile’s dispositional hearing was: purposeful * * * to avoid the situation where the juvenile’s already sentenced, and then we have the potential where he faces no further penalty, and potentially * * * takes the blame for all this, so the juvenile court is continuing out his sentencing until this case is 2020“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 , 2008-Ohio-6266 , ¶ 140, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶45} Mr. Daniels argues that the prosecutor did not maintain fairness due to a “false charge, excessive bond[,] and intentional non-development of readily available FACTUAL DOCUMENT evidence to establish the circumstantial evidence case with extorted testimony * * *.” He contends that T.Y. and T.W. perjured themselves by presenting false testimony—testimony which was “extorted” b | 31 | 2010–2023 |
State v. Newton
green
2 sentences2026Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “ ‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). 2026Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “ ‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). | 15 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Treesh
green
2 sentences2024State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . {¶48} Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶49} If any misconduct occurred, the court must consider the effect it had on the jury “in the context of the entire trial.” State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 , 613 N.E.2d 20 2024State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 464 , 2001-Ohio-4 , 739 N.E.2d 749 . {¶48} Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct implicate due process concerns, and the touchstone of the analysis is the “‘fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Newton, 108 Ohio St.3d 13 , 2006-Ohio-81 , 840 N.E.2d 593 , ¶ 92, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶49} If any misconduct occurred, the court must consider the effect it had on the jury “in the context of the entire trial.” State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 , 613 N.E.2d 20 | 12 | 2005–2024 |
State v. Garrett
green
2 sentences2026The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” (Citations omitted) State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 144 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). 2025“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 144 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). | 10 | 2023–2026 |
State v. LaMar
green
2 sentences2025“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 144 . 2025We do not agree. {¶33} “To address allegations of prosecutorial misconduct we ‘must determine (1) whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and (2) if so, whether it prejudicially affected [the defendant’s] substantial rights.’” State v. Light, 2023-Ohio-1187, ¶ 46 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. LaMar, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 121 . “‘The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”’” Light at ¶ 46, quoting State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 144 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). | 7 | 2023–2026 |
United States v. Hasting
green
2 sentences2022“The touchstone of the 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). “‘Given the myriad safeguards provided to assure a fair trial, and taking into account the reality of the human fallibility of the participants, there can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.”’ (Emphasis sic.) State v. Majid, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96855, 2012-Ohio- 1192, ¶ 40, quoting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-50 2022“The touchstone of the 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). “‘Given the myriad safeguards provided to assure a fair trial, and taking into account the reality of the human fallibility of the participants, there can be no such thing as an error-free, perfect trial, and * * * the Constitution does not guarantee such a trial.”’ (Emphasis sic.) State v. Majid, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96855, 2012-Ohio- 1192, ¶ 40, quoting United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-50 | 7 | 1990–2022 |
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences2016“Again, the touchstone of this analysis ‘“is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”’” Siefer at ¶ 46, quoting State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2002- Ohio-6658, ¶ 140, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 (1982). -59- Case No. 14-15-11 {¶105} First, Costell alleges that the prosecutor made seven impermissible comments during opening statements. 2016“Again, the touchstone of this analysis ‘“is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.”’” Siefer at ¶ 46, quoting State v. Myers, 97 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2002-Ohio-6658, ¶ 140 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 (1982). {¶84} In determining whether a prosecutor’s remarks were improper and if they prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights, “an appellate court should consider several factors: (1) the nature of the remarks, (2) whether an objection was made by counsel, (3) whether corrective instructions were given by the court, and ( | 7 | 2005–2016 |
State v. Leonard
green
2 sentences2023“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 155, 818 N.E.2d 229 quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). {¶36} Here, Hathorn claims that the prosecutor acted improperly due to the statements made during closing arguments. 2023“The touchstone of the analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 155, quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). | 5 | 2014–2023 |
State v. Drummond
green
2 sentences2018Accordingly, Brady simply does not apply, and even if it did, there is no indication that the State withheld any evidence. {¶ 127} Hawkins’ final argument under this assignment of error is that the State committed misconduct when it said the DNA swab was taken at Hawkins’ home when the State knew it had been taken when Hawkins was in jail. {¶ 128} “The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks were -39- improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected the accused's substantial rights. * * * The touchstone of our analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability 2018Accordingly, Brady simply does not apply, and even if it did, there is no indication that the State withheld any evidence. {¶ 127} Hawkins’ final argument under this assignment of error is that the State committed misconduct when it said the DNA swab was taken at Hawkins’ home when the State knew it had been taken when Hawkins was in jail. {¶ 128} “The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether the remarks were -39- improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected the accused's substantial rights. * * * The touchstone of our analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability | 5 | 2007–2018 |
State v. Noling
green
2 sentences2015"The touchstone of this analysis 'is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 91 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). " 'A conviction will be reversed only where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, absent the prosecutor's comments, the jury would not have found appellant guilty.' " State v. Brooks, 10th Dist. 2015"The touchstone of this analysis 'is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.' " State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2002-Ohio-7044, ¶ 91 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). " 'A conviction will be reversed only where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, absent the prosecutor's comments, the jury would not have found appellant guilty.' " State v. Brooks, 10th Dist. | 5 | 2003–2017 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences2012The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 149 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶76} The right of an accused to remain silent, enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), carries with it an implicit assurance that his silence will not be used against him. 2012The touchstone of the analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 , 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 149 , quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982). {¶76} The right of an accused to remain silent, enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), carries with it an implicit assurance that his silence will not be used against him. | 5 | 2012–2014 |
| State v. Lang green | 4 | 2012–2025 |
| State v. Treesh green | 4 | 2005–2024 |
| State v. Davis green | 4 | 2008–2016 |
| State v. Jackson green | 4 | 2007–2011 |
| State v. Cornwell green | 4 | 2006–2009 |
| State v. Twyford green | 4 | 2002–2008 |
| State v. Ecker green | 3 | 2025–2026 |
| State v. Smith green | 3 | 2002–2025 |
| State v. Rush green | 3 | 2000–2025 |
| State v. Williams green | 3 | 2014–2024 |
| State v. Maurer green | 3 | 2018–2024 |
| State v. Jones green | 3 | 2013–2023 |
| State v. Ballew green | 3 | 2007–2013 |
| State v. Evans green | 3 | 2000–2010 |
| State v. Peterson, 88248 (4-19-2007) green | 3 | 2007–2008 |
| State v. Thompson (Slip Opinion) green | 2 | 2026–2026 |
| Maggio v. City of Cleveland green | 2 | 2016–2025 |
| State v. Tumbleson green | 2 | 2023–2024 |
| Nolan v. Nolan green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Maxwell green | 2 | 2014–2020 |
| United States v. Brignoni-Ponce green | 2 | 1982–2017 |
| State v. Reynolds, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003) green | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| Berger v. United States red | 2 | 1995–2014 |
| State v. Veal green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Brady, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2003) green | 2 | 2007–2012 |
| State v. Phillips green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Moore green | 2 | 2005–2011 |
| State v. Ballew green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
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.