touchstone analysis in Ohio

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

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).

2019Medina 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 he been more agreeable to answer some questions, but that was after he was under arrest.

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.

2002Appellant 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 .

2018In assessing the existence of prosecutorial misconduct, we are mindful that “the touchstone of this analysis is the fairness of the [proceeding], not the culpability of the prosecutor.” State v. Twyford, 94 Ohio St.3d 340, 355 (2002). {¶70} We note appellant did not object to these statements during the sentencing hearing.

2014Seneca No. 13-12-38, 2013-Ohio-2046, ¶ 43 , quoting State v. Twyford, 94 Ohio St.3d 340, 355 , 763 N.E.2d 122 (2002) (“In assessing the existence of prosecutorial misconduct, we are mindful that ‘the touchstone of this analysis is the fairness of the [proceeding], not the culpability of the prosecutor.’ ”).

2023Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 29 . {¶20} “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (1977), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

2023Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 29 . {¶20} “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (1977), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

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.

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.

2026“The touchstone of analysis PAGE 25 OF 35 Case No. 2024-P-0072 ‘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 .

2026“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 .

2024According 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).

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

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

2023Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 29 . {¶20} “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (1977), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

2023Warren No. CA2013-10-090, 2014-Ohio-2586, ¶ 29 . {¶20} “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.’” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (1977), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

2017“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 .

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).

2011"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 , at ¶61, quoting Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 .

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 (

2014“The touchstone of analysis ‘is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.’” Id.

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

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

2020The 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).