harmless error in Ohio

2026Crim.R. 52(A) defines “harmless error” as “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under the harmless-error standard of review, “the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-297 , ¶ 15, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 (1993).

2025Under the harmless-error standard of review, the State “bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-297 , ¶ 15, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 (1993).

2025Harmless Error {¶26} “Harmless error review requires: 1) that the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the improper evidence at trial, 2) that the appellate court believes 10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS that the error was ‘not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and 3) that after excising the improper evidence, the remaining evidence overwhelmingly supports finding the defendant guilty.” Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257, at ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-5052 , ¶ 27-29.

2025“During a harmless-error inquiry, the state has the burden of proving that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-5052 , ¶ -24- Case No. 9-23-83 23.

2025May 6, 1997), quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 310 .6 {¶ 112} In its brief, the state notes the following courts have applied a harmless error analysis to a violation of a defendant’s right to testify: State v. Nelson, 2014 WI 70 (2014); Woolfolk, 339 S.W.3d 411 ; Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2010); People v. Allen, 44 Cal.4th 843, 871 (2008); Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223, 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

2024Such errors permeate “[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end so that the trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. {¶39} This Court has held the “[f]ailure to properly instruct a jury is not in most instances structural error, thus the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) applies; failure to properly instruct the jury does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining gu

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error in the context of criminal cases and provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under the harmless-error standard of review, “the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). {¶42} In Arnold, the Ohio Supreme Court held in the context of failure

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error in the context of criminal cases and provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under the harmless-error standard of review, “the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). {¶42} In Arnold, the Ohio Supreme Court held in the context of failure

2020See McKelton at ¶ 192 , quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , (1969). {¶22} Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error in the context of criminal cases and provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under the harmless-error standard of review, “the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004–Ohio–297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

2020See McKelton at ¶ 192 , quoting Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , (1969). {¶22} Crim.R. 52(A) defines harmless error in the context of criminal cases and provides: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under the harmless-error standard of review, “the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004–Ohio–297, 802 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 15 , citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

2024State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983), syllabus; State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶145 . {¶78} In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , (1999) the United States Supreme Court held that because the failure to properly instruct the jury is not in most instances structural error, the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) applies to a failure to properly instruct the jury, for it does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence. {¶79} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting su

2024Such errors permeate “[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end so that the trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. {¶39} This Court has held the “[f]ailure to properly instruct a jury is not in most instances structural error, thus the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) applies; failure to properly instruct the jury does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining gu

2023This Court has previously explained that, if we find the trial court erred in instructing the jury, then we must “determine whether that error was harmless or prejudicial.” State v. Noggle, 140 Ohio App.3d 733, 749 , 749 N.E.2d 309 (3d Dist.2000). “‘Harmless error’ is defined in CrimR. 52(A) as ‘[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights * * *.’” Id. “‘To be deemed nonprejudicial, error of constitutional dimension must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 , 452 N.E.2d 1323 (1983), paragraph three

2023This Court has previously explained that, if we find the trial court erred in instructing the jury, then we must “determine whether that error was harmless or prejudicial.” State v. Noggle, 140 Ohio App.3d 733, 749 , 749 N.E.2d 309 (3d Dist.2000). “‘Harmless error’ is defined in CrimR. 52(A) as ‘[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights * * *.’” Id. “‘To be deemed nonprejudicial, error of constitutional dimension must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id., quoting State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 , 452 N.E.2d 1323 (1983), paragraph three

2024The burden of satisfying the harmless-error standard falls on the state, and the standard is “a standard significantly more favorable to the defendant.” Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , 802 N.E.2d 643, at ¶ 15 , quoting United States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273, 286 (4th Cir.2003).

2024Finally, the State argues that limiting Appellant’s closing argument in this way was not prejudicial because the State did not move to strike or request the jury disregard the statements Appellant’s counsel had made and the jury was free to consider the argument despite the trial court sustaining the State’s objection. {¶20} The State urges that if prejudice exists, the error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence demonstrating Appellant’s guilt. {¶21} The harmless error standard is “‘significantly more favorable to the defendant.’” State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio 297, ¶ 15, quoting Un

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” In determining whether the erroneous admission of evidence constitutes harmless error under Crim.R. 52(A), courts apply the following three- part test: “First, it must be determined whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error, i.e., whether the error had an impact on the verdict. * * * Second, it must be determined whether the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Lastly, onc

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” In determining whether the erroneous admission of evidence constitutes harmless error under Crim.R. 52(A), courts apply the following three- part test: “First, it must be determined whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error, i.e., whether the error had an impact on the verdict. * * * Second, it must be determined whether the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Lastly, onc

2025A. Standard of Review {¶ 134} “The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence . . . and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986). {¶ 135} The harmless-error doctrine is reflected in Crim.R. 52(A), which states: “Harmless Error.

2005In determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, "the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , overruled on other grounds; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , (holding that the harmless error analysis established in Chapman, supra, applies to confrontation clause violations). {¶ 30} Upon review of the record and in light of the other evidence presented, we find there is no reasonable probability that the cha

2025Compare State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-3051, ¶17-20 (structural errors or constructional errors are per se prejudicial and thus not subject to a harmless-error analysis, i.e., review of errors objected to at trial).

2023Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Crim.R. 52(A). “[W]hether a defendant’s substantial rights have been abridged depends on (1) whether the alleged error prejudiced the defendant (i.e., whether it had an impact on the trial); (2) whether, after the prejudicial evidence is excised, the remaining evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Suthe

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” In determining whether the erroneous admission of evidence constitutes harmless error under Crim.R. 52(A), courts apply the following three- part test: “First, it must be determined whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error, i.e., whether the error had an impact on the verdict. * * * Second, it must be determined whether the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Lastly, onc

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” In determining whether the erroneous admission of evidence constitutes harmless error under Crim.R. 52(A), courts apply the following three- part test: “First, it must be determined whether the defendant was prejudiced by the error, i.e., whether the error had an impact on the verdict. * * * Second, it must be determined whether the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Lastly, onc

2022Structural errors “are ‘so fundamental that they obviate the necessity for a reviewing court to do a harmless-error analysis.’ ” State v. Jones, 160 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2020-Ohio-3051 , 156 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 20 , quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 199 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001).

2022Structural errors “are ‘so fundamental that they obviate the necessity for a reviewing court to do a harmless-error analysis.’ ” State v. Jones, 160 Ohio St.3d 314 , 2020-Ohio-3051 , 156 N.E.3d 872, ¶ 20 , quoting State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 199 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001).

2023See Smith, 2019- Ohio-3257, 141 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 14; State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio- 493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 178 (“Confrontation Clause claims are * * * subject to harmless-error analysis.”). {¶24} Crim.R. 52(A) governs the harmless error standard in the context of a criminal case: “Under the harmless-error standard of review, the state bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-603 , 209 N.E.3d 883 , ¶ 103 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.

2023See Smith, 2019- Ohio-3257, 141 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 14; State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 , 2018-Ohio- 493, 108 N.E.3d 1028, ¶ 178 (“Confrontation Clause claims are * * * subject to harmless-error analysis.”). {¶24} Crim.R. 52(A) governs the harmless error standard in the context of a criminal case: “Under the harmless-error standard of review, the state bears the burden of demonstrating that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-603 , 209 N.E.3d 883 , ¶ 103 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Graham, 164 Ohio St.3d 187 , 2020-Ohio-6700 , 172 N.

2024See State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 350 , 528 N.E.2d 910 (1988) (admission of hearsay that was cumulative to other admitted evidence constitutes harmless error.) Harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Crim.R. 52(A). {¶55} Hindi testified that Newcomb was in a tan truck when he exited and assaulted Hindi a second time.

2024See State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 350 , 528 N.E.2d 910 (1988) (admission of hearsay that was cumulative to other admitted evidence constitutes harmless error.) Harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Crim.R. 52(A). {¶55} Hindi testified that Newcomb was in a tan truck when he exited and assaulted Hindi a second time.

2025“The state bears the burden of proving that the error did not affect a defendant’s substantial rights.” Id., citing Moore at ¶ 33 .

2024“During a harmless error inquiry, the state has the burden of proving that the error did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Moore, 2021-Ohio-765, ¶ 37 (6th Dist.). {¶ 11} We find that the trial court’s error “probably misled” the jury in that the jury was never asked to determine whether the state disproved appellant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

2024State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983), syllabus; State v. Lang, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶145 . {¶78} In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , (1999) the United States Supreme Court held that because the failure to properly instruct the jury is not in most instances structural error, the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) applies to a failure to properly instruct the jury, for it does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence. {¶79} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that, “[p]lain errors or defects affecting su

2024Such errors permeate “[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end so that the trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. {¶39} This Court has held the “[f]ailure to properly instruct a jury is not in most instances structural error, thus the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) applies; failure to properly instruct the jury does not necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining gu

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under Crim.R. 52, in order to prejudice a defendant’s substantial rights, the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings.’” State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127 , 2003-Ohio-2761 , 789 N.E.2d 222 , ¶ 7, quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2023Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Crim.R. 52(A). “[W]hether a defendant’s substantial rights have been abridged depends on (1) whether the alleged error prejudiced the defendant (i.e., whether it had an impact on the trial); (2) whether, after the prejudicial evidence is excised, the remaining evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Suthe

2024Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Under Crim.R. 52, in order to prejudice a defendant’s substantial rights, the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings.’” State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127 , 2003-Ohio-2761 , 789 N.E.2d 222 , ¶ 7, quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

2023Crim.R. 52(A) defines the harmless-error doctrine in criminal cases and provides that: “Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” Crim.R. 52(A). “[W]hether a defendant’s substantial rights have been abridged depends on (1) whether the alleged error prejudiced the defendant (i.e., whether it had an impact on the trial); (2) whether, after the prejudicial evidence is excised, the remaining evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Suthe

2017Finally, in considering whether to apply the harmless error or structural error standard of review, the United States Supreme Court found that "[d]enial of the right to a jury verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * * with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.' " Id. at 281-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 . {¶ 24} Here, appellant asserts the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the reasonable doubt standard.

2017Finally, in considering whether to apply the harmless error or structural error standard of review, the United States Supreme Court found that "[d]enial of the right to a jury verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * * with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as 'structural error.' " Id. at 281-82 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 . {¶ 24} Here, appellant asserts the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the reasonable doubt standard.

2022See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (“Harmless- error analysis in such a context would be a speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternate universe”). {¶ 31} The errors that occurred in Montgomery’s trial are not akin to the state’s vouching for the credibility of a witness, see State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 145 (explaining that vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies knowledge of facts outside the record or expresses a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness).

2022See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 , 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (“Harmless- error analysis in such a context would be a speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternate universe”). {¶ 31} The errors that occurred in Montgomery’s trial are not akin to the state’s vouching for the credibility of a witness, see State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 145 (explaining that vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies knowledge of facts outside the record or expresses a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness).

2016Summit No. 22069, 2005-Ohio- 591, ¶ 13, quoting Chieffo v. YSD Industries, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 182 , 2004-Ohio-2481, ¶ 24 (7th Dist.), quoting Civ.R. 61 (“‘Civ.R. 61 sets forth the harmless error rule in civil cases, providing that no error or defect in any ruling is, ‘ground for * * * vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.’”). 5 {¶12} In light of the foregoing, Ms. Dewald’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.

2016Summit No. 22069, 2005-Ohio- 591, ¶ 13, quoting Chieffo v. YSD Industries, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 182 , 2004-Ohio-2481, ¶ 24 (7th Dist.), quoting Civ.R. 61 (“‘Civ.R. 61 sets forth the harmless error rule in civil cases, providing that no error or defect in any ruling is, ‘ground for * * * vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.’”). 5 {¶12} In light of the foregoing, Ms. Dewald’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.

2022In fact, the error would not meet even the harmless- error standard, since it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. {¶ 115} Although the individual errors standing alone did not deprive Montgomery of a fair trial, this court in State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 , 509 N.E.2d 1256 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus, recognized the doctrine of cumulative error.

2022In fact, the error would not meet even the harmless- error standard, since it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. {¶ 115} Although the individual errors standing alone did not deprive Montgomery of a fair trial, this court in State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 , 509 N.E.2d 1256 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus, recognized the doctrine of cumulative error.

2017Id. at 178 . {¶ 18} Since Hoover was decided, however, the United States Supreme Court has found errors "to be 'structural,' and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a 'very limited class of cases.' " Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), quoting Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461 , 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).

2017Id. at 178 . {¶ 18} Since Hoover was decided, however, the United States Supreme Court has found errors "to be 'structural,' and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a 'very limited class of cases.' " Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1 , 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), quoting Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461 , 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).

2026She argues that this testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because the experts who conducted these analyses and authored the resulting reports did not testify at trial. -24- Case No. 13-25-13 {¶63} If a defendant demonstrates that his or her rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated at trial, “the Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently applied a harmless-error analysis to determine whether the issue prejudiced the defendant.” State v. Scott, 2025-Ohio-419, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), citing State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 192 .

2026See State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 192 ; State v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-1247, ¶ 46 ; Hood at ¶ 50 ; see also Primo, 2005-Ohio- 3903, at ¶ 17 ("violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless-error review").

2024SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-1247 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARTER, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Carter, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1247 .] Criminal law―Sixth Amendment―Right to face-to-face confrontation―Harmless error―Trial court erred in allowing witness to testify by video at trial without making sufficient case-specific findings of necessity, in violation of defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution―In light of other evide

2024SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-1247 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARTER, APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Carter, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1247 .] Criminal law―Sixth Amendment―Right to face-to-face confrontation―Harmless error―Trial court erred in allowing witness to testify by video at trial without making sufficient case-specific findings of necessity, in violation of defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution―In light of other evide