10 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2019 0 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. Fraziergreen2 sentences2019Schee at ¶ 42, citing Horner at ¶ 46 , State v. Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d 323, 332 , 652 N.E.2d 1000 (1995), and Crim.R. 52 (stating “failure to timely object to a defect in an indictment constitutes a waiver of the error. * * * Any claim of error in the indictment in such a case is limited to a plain-error review on appeal.”). {¶ 19} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error,” which is a clear deviation from a legal rule. 2019Schee at ¶ 42, citing Horner at ¶ 46 , State v. Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d 323, 332 , 652 N.E.2d 1000 (1995), and Crim.R. 52 (stating “failure to timely object to a defect in an indictment constitutes a waiver of the error. * * * Any claim of error in the indictment in such a case is limited to a plain-error review on appeal.”). {¶ 19} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error,” which is a clear deviation from a legal rule. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2014Appellant has waived both arguments, however, by failing to present either as the basis of his Rule 29 motion in the trial court. {¶12} An error that is not called to the attention of the trial court at the time when the error could have been avoided or corrected is “usually treated as a waived error on appeal.” State v. Irby, 2004-Ohio-5929, ¶12 , citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 196 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). 2014Appellant has waived both arguments, however, by failing to present either as the basis of his Rule 29 motion in the trial court. {¶12} An error that is not called to the attention of the trial court at the time when the error could have been avoided or corrected is “usually treated as a waived error on appeal.” State v. Irby, 2004-Ohio-5929, ¶12 , citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 196 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). | 2 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Sadeghi
green
1 sentence2018No. 14AP0051, 2016-Ohio-744 , 2016 WL 769109 , ¶ 22 (consider the judicially noticed evidence in evaluating an insufficiency claim). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Childs
green
2 sentences2014“Even constitutional rights ‘may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.’ ” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 532 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 62 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968). {¶10} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error.” Id. 2014“Even constitutional rights ‘may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.’ ” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 532 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 62 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968). {¶10} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2014“Even constitutional rights ‘may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.’ ” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 532 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 62 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968). {¶10} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error.” Id. 2014“Even constitutional rights ‘may be lost as finally as any others by a failure to assert them at the proper time.’ ” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 532 , 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 62 , 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968). {¶10} A reviewing court may take notice of the waived error only if it can be characterized as a “plain error.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Irby, Unpublished Decision (11-1-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2014Appellant has waived both arguments, however, by failing to present either as the basis of his Rule 29 motion in the trial court. {¶12} An error that is not called to the attention of the trial court at the time when the error could have been avoided or corrected is “usually treated as a waived error on appeal.” State v. Irby, 2004-Ohio-5929, ¶12 , citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 196 , 749 N.E.2d 274 (2001). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2004)
green
1 sentence2013Washington No. 03CA11, 2004-Ohio-2236, at ¶ 8-9 . “[T]here are ‘three limitations on a reviewing court's decision to correct [a waived error]. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Tackett, Unpublished Decision (12-5-2007)
green
1 sentence2011No. 06CA3103, 2007-Ohio-6620 , 2007 WL 4328084 , at ¶ 28. {¶ 36} “[T]here are ‘three limitations on a reviewing court’s decision to correct [a waived error]. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2007We recently resolved this issue in State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , and we therefore conclude that defense counsel’s failure to challenge Frazier’s noncapital sentencing waived his present claim. {¶ 206} A waived claim will still be considered when there is plain error. 2007We recently resolved this issue in State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 , and we therefore conclude that defense counsel’s failure to challenge Frazier’s noncapital sentencing waived his present claim. {¶ 206} A waived claim will still be considered when there is plain error. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Craft
green
1 sentence1990In State v. Craft (1977), 52 Ohio App. 2d 1 , Judge Black had this to say about plain error: "How do we distinguish between a waived error and a plain error? | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.