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.
9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 2 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. Moritzgreen2 sentences2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc 2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc | 3 | 6 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987See State v. Muskus (1952), 158 Ohio St. 276 , 49 O.O. 122 , 109 N.E. 2d 15 , paragraph two of the syllabus, certiorari denied (1954), 347 U.S. 938 . 1980A closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error, State v. Muskus (1952), 158 Ohio St. 276 , certiorari denied 347 U.S. 938 , particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Encarnaciongreen2 sentences2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc 2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keenangreen2 sentences2026Lucas No. L-95-287, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3607, *4 (Aug. 15, 1997), citing State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 (1993). -15- Case No. 17-24-12 Analysis {¶35} Upkins contends that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor, during opening and closing arguments made several improper statements. 2026Lucas No. L-95-287, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3607, *4 (Aug. 15, 1997), citing State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St.3d 402, 410 (1993). -15- Case No. 17-24-12 Analysis {¶35} Upkins contends that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor, during opening and closing arguments made several improper statements. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rasawehrgreen2 sentences2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc 2026However, “[a] closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error,” “particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict to meet a public demand.” State v. Moritz, 63 Ohio St.2d 150, 157 (1980). “‘A prosecutor’s isolated comments are not to be taken out of context and given their most damaging meaning.’” State v. Rasawehr, 2020-Ohio-429, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Encarnacion, 2017-Ohio-5530, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). “‘Instead, an appellate court must review a closing argument in its entirety to determine whether prejudicial error occurred.’” Id., quoting Enc | 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. Jackson
green
1 sentence2014A reviewing court “will not deem a trial unfair if, in the context of the entire trial, it appears clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found the defendant guilty even without the improper comments.” State v. Jackson, 107 Ohio St.3d 300 , 2006-Ohio-1 , ¶ 142. {¶34} The following exchange took place during the direct examination of Detective McMillan. [PROSECUTOR:] When you investigated to see if Mr. Easley had ever scrapped, what did you find? [DETECTIVE MCMILLAN:] I actually found one time where he scrapped. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences2004State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43 , 45 , 479 N.E.2d 862 . {¶ 74} A closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error, particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict in order to meet public demand See State v. Dixon (Mar. 13, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 68338. {¶ 75} In State v. Semenchuk, Cuyahoga App. No. 79523, 2002-Ohio-674 , the prosecuting attorney said, "the state is going to ask you to protect her and send a message to the defendant that he cannot get away with this type of behavior regardless of whether or not Ms. Wilson is going to come 2004State v. Zimmerman (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 43 , 45 , 479 N.E.2d 862 . {¶ 74} A closing argument that goes beyond the record may constitute prejudicial error, particularly where the remarks call for the jury to convict in order to meet public demand See State v. Dixon (Mar. 13, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 68338. {¶ 75} In State v. Semenchuk, Cuyahoga App. No. 79523, 2002-Ohio-674 , the prosecuting attorney said, "the state is going to ask you to protect her and send a message to the defendant that he cannot get away with this type of behavior regardless of whether or not Ms. Wilson is going to come | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Cloud
green
2 sentences1988Likewise, in State v. Cloud (1960), 112 Ohio App. 208, 217 , 14 O.O. 2d 132, 136, 168 N.E. 2d 761, 767 , Judge Kovachy aptly stated: “Arguments of counsel in the trial of a lawsuit are permitted for the sole purpose of aiding the jury in analyzing the evidence and thus assisting it in determining the facts of the case. 1988Likewise, in State v. Cloud (1960), 112 Ohio App. 208, 217 , 14 O.O. 2d 132, 136, 168 N.E. 2d 761, 767 , Judge Kovachy aptly stated: “Arguments of counsel in the trial of a lawsuit are permitted for the sole purpose of aiding the jury in analyzing the evidence and thus assisting it in determining the facts of the case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence1980State v. Davis (1978), 60 Ohio App. 2d 355 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.