claim of plain error in Ohio

2026See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion . . . unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”). {¶8} The overturning of a judgment based on plain error “is not favored” and should occur “only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.” Goldf

2025See No. 24AP-387 3 Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) (“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a factual finding or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).”). {¶ 7} Courts will find that plain error has occurred “only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error . . . seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public repu

2026“This court consistently holds that we ‘need not analyze plain error when appellant has failed to make a plain[] error argument.’” State v. Jones, 2025-Ohio-3252, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.); State v. Patton, 2021-Ohio-295, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.) (Explaining that an appellate court “will not construct a claim of plain error on a defendant’s behalf if the defendant fails to argue plain error on appeal.”). {¶14} Additionally, statements made to a social worker with the Mayerson Center for the purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment are an exception to the hearsay rule under Evid.R. 803(4).

2026See State v. Patton, 2021-Ohio-295, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.) (explaining that an appellate court “will not construct a claim of plain error on a defendant’s behalf if the defendant fails 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS to argue plain error on appeal”).

2020Summit Nos. 23955 and 23959, 2008-Ohio-2432, ¶ 33 (“[T]his Court will not construct a claim of plain error on behalf of an appellant who fails to raise such an argument in her [or his] brief.”).

2019Summit Nos. 23955 and 23959, 2008-Ohio-2432, ¶ 33 (“[T]his Court will not construct a claim of plain error on behalf of an appellant who fails to raise such an argument in her brief.”).

2011To prevail on a claim of plain error, Mr. Fite would have to show that, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St. 3d 516, 532 (2001) (quoting State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St. 3d 38, 41 (1994)). {¶37} Mr. Fite has not argued that any jurors showed or discussed proposed questions with each other, nor has he argued how, but for the trial court’s failure to give the instruction, the outcome of his trial would have been different.

2011In order to prevail on a claim of plain error, the defendant must show that, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St. 3d 516, 532 (2001) (quoting State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St. 3d 38, 41 (1994)). {¶15} Mr. Capers has not made such a showing in this case.

2011To prevail on a claim of plain error, Mr. Fite would have to show that, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St. 3d 516, 532 (2001) (quoting State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St. 3d 38, 41 (1994)). {¶37} Mr. Fite has not argued that any jurors showed or discussed proposed questions with each other, nor has he argued how, but for the trial court’s failure to give the instruction, the outcome of his trial would have been different.

2011In order to prevail on a claim of plain error, the defendant must show that, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St. 3d 516, 532 (2001) (quoting State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St. 3d 38, 41 (1994)). {¶15} Mr. Capers has not made such a showing in this case.

2024Ohio Neighborhood Health Servs., 2020-Ohio-1609, ¶ 87 (8th Dist.) (“We need not, sua sponte, consider a claim of plain error that the appellant has not argued on appeal.”); Coleman v. Coleman, 2015-Ohio-2500 , ¶ 9 (9th Dist.) (declining to sua sponte “fashion” a plain error argument “and then address it”).

2023Cuyahoga No. 108541, 2020-Ohio-1609, ¶ 87 (“We need not, sua sponte, consider a claim of plain error that the appellant has not argued on appeal.”); Coleman v. Coleman, 9th Dist.

2023Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” “The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-464

2023Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv), “[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” “The burden of demonstrating plain error is on the party asserting it.” State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-464

2025To prevail on a claim of plain error, it must be shown “that there was an error, that the error was plain or obvious, that but for the error the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and that reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Buttery, 2020-Ohio- 2998, ¶ 7, citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 .

2025To prevail on a claim of plain error, it must be shown “that there was an error, that the error was plain or obvious, that but for the error the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and that reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Buttery, 2020-Ohio-2998 , ¶ 7, citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034 .

2026"This rule 'embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.'" In re R.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110541, 2021-Ohio-4126, ¶ 23 , quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist.1998) ("[t]he waiver under Juv.R. 40[E][3][b] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a

2026"This rule 'embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error when the error could have been corrected results in a waiver of the issue for purposes of appeal.'" In re R.A., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110541, 2021-Ohio-4126, ¶ 23 , quoting In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492 , 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist.1998) ("[t]he waiver under Juv.R. 40[E][3][b] embodies the long-recognized principle that the failure to draw the trial court's attention to possible error, by objection or otherwise, when the error could have been corrected, results in a

2023“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “ ‘In essence, the rule is based on the principle that a trial court should have a chance to correct or avoid a mistake before its decision is subject to scrutiny by a reviewing court.’ ” Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. Athens No

2023“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “ ‘In essence, the rule is based on the principle that a trial court should have a chance to correct or avoid a mistake before its decision is subject to scrutiny by a reviewing court.’ ” Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. Athens No

2020Therefore, “[w]hen a party fails to raise an issue in the party’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Varner v. Varner, 170 Ohio App.3d 448 , 2007-Ohio-675, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.). {¶11} Father failed to challenge the admissibility of any evidence in his objections.

2020Therefore, “[w]hen a party fails to raise an issue in the party’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” Varner v. Varner, 170 Ohio App.3d 448 , 2007-Ohio-675, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.). {¶11} Father failed to challenge the admissibility of any evidence in his objections.

2016“For objections to findings of fact, they must be ‘supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.’ ” Id., quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). “ ‘Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53

2016“For objections to findings of fact, they must be ‘supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.’ ” Id., quoting Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). “ ‘Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53

2026Buford v. Singleton, 2005-Ohio-753, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.).

2026Buford v. Singleton, 2005-Ohio-753, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.).

2026To prevail on a claim of plain error Harris must show that “an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Gavin, 2015-Ohio-2996, ¶ 24 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Mammone, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 69 ; State v. Leonhart, 2014–Ohio–5601, ¶ 53 (4th Dist.). {73} Because Harris has not claimed plain error on appeal, we need not consider it.

2015To prevail on a claim of plain error, an appellant “must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Mammone, 139 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2014-Ohio-1942 , 13 N.E.3d 1051, ¶ 69 (emphasis added). {¶ 9} Assuming that Thomas, in the case before us, can succeed in showing that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, and that this error was plain, he cannot show prejudice.

2023“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “ ‘In essence, the rule is based on the principle that a trial court should have a chance to correct or avoid a mistake before its decision is subject to scrutiny by a reviewing court.’ ” Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. Athens No

2023“Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). “ ‘In essence, the rule is based on the principle that a trial court should have a chance to correct or avoid a mistake before its decision is subject to scrutiny by a reviewing court.’ ” Liming v. Damos, 4th Dist. Athens No

2021Our plain error analysis of Crim.R. 52(B) will not warrant a reversal of appellant’s convictions unless appellant establishes “that the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court’s plain error.” State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996), citing Moreland at 63 . 19. {¶ 37} We reviewed the record and do not find appellant points to evidence supporting the first and second elements for a claim of plain error.

2021Our plain error analysis of Crim.R. 52(B) will not warrant a reversal of appellant’s convictions unless appellant establishes “that the outcome of the trial would clearly have been different but for the trial court’s plain error.” State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996), citing Moreland at 63 . 19. {¶ 37} We reviewed the record and do not find appellant points to evidence supporting the first and second elements for a claim of plain error.

2026Group, L.L.C. v. Robart, 2009-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 15 (9th Dist.) (“Because [the appellant] did not specifically object to the findings in the magistrate’s decision set forth in the . . . assignments of error, those claims have been forfeited and may not be raised on appeal.”). {¶22} “While a [party] who forfeits such an argument still may argue plain error on appeal, this [C]ourt will not sua sponte undertake a plain error analysis if the [party] fails to do so.” (Alterations sic.) Bass-Fineberg Leasing, Inc. v. Modern Auto Sales, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.). {¶23} As stated above, Mr. Whip

2026“Where a party fails to raise an issue in its objections to a magistrate’s decision, that issue is forfeited on appeal.” Niederst v. Niederst, 2018-Ohio-5320, ¶ 34 (9th Dist.), quoting Bass- Fineberg Leasing, Inc. v. Modern Auto Sales, Inc., 2015-Ohio-46, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); see also Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).

2026Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides: Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). 8 {¶21} “This Court has previously determined that an appellant forfeits appellate review of any issues not stated in [an objection] to the magistrate’s decision.” Trombley v. Trombley, 2018-Ohio-1880, ¶ 10 (9th Dist.

2021Tucker v. Hines, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-375, 2020-Ohio-1086, ¶ 6 (stating that a "party who fails to timely object to a magistrate's decision is limited by operation of Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) to claims of plain error on appeal"); Trombley v. Trombley, 9th Dist. No. 17CA0012-M, 2018-Ohio-1880, ¶ 10 (stating that "an appellant forfeits appellate review of any issues not stated in her objections to the magistrate's decision").

2025Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides, “Except for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless that party had objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).” “Thus, when a party fails to properly object to a magistrate’s decision in accordance with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), it generally forfeits the right to assign those issues as errors on appeal.” Marrs v. Mickel, 2023-Ohio-4528, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Matthews, 2017-Ohio-4075 , ¶ 14 (8th Dist.).

2025“This rule is ‘“based on the principle that a trial court should 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS have a chance to correct or avoid a mistake before its decision is subject to scrutiny by a reviewing court.”’” Id., quoting Barnett v. Barnett, 2008-Ohio-3415, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.). {¶10} “Plain errors are errors in the judicial process that are clearly apparent on the face of the record and are prejudicial to the appellant.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lundeen, 2020-Ohio-28, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.).

2022CA2018-06-124 and CA2018-06- 125, 2019-Ohio-3716, ¶ 14 , quoting Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982). "[W]here a party fails to expressly raise a claim of plain error on appeal, we need - 17 - Warren CA2022-06-046 CA2022-06-047 CA2022-06-048 CA2022-06-049 not consider whether plain error exists." In re A.V., 2021-Ohio-3878 at ¶ 35 , citing In re K.P.R., 197 Ohio App.3d 193 , 2011-Ohio-6114 , ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

2016Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides that "[e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any -9- Butler CA2015-08-143 factual finding or legal conclusion * * * unless the party has objected to that finding as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)." This court has previously ruled that "unless the appellant argues a 'claim of plain error,' the appellant has waived the claimed errors not objected to below." In re L.K. at ¶ 16; In re K.P.R., 197 Ohio App.3d 193 , 2011-Ohio-6114 , ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). {¶ 33} Here, although Father filed an objection to t

2019E.g., Matter of K.W., 4th Dist. Highland, 2018-Ohio-1933 , 111 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 94 (refusing to consider plain-error when litigant fails to argue it); Wilson v. Farahay, 4th Dist. Adams No. 14CA994, 2015-Ohio-2509 , 2015 WL 3886438 , ¶ 34; accord State v. Arnold, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24400, 2009-Ohio-2108 , 2009 WL 1220654 , ¶ 8 (“[T]his Court will not construct a claim of plain error on a defendant’s behalf if the defendant fails to argue plain error on appeal.”). {¶41} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we overrule Appellants’ sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s ju

2018Summit No. 24400, 2009-Ohio-2108 , 2009 WL 1220654 , ¶ 8 ("[T]his Court will not construct a claim of plain error on a defendant's behalf if the defendant fails to argue plain error on appeal."). {¶ 25} Consequently, in view of the foregoing we believe that appellant forfeited this argument for purposes of appeal, and we decline to engage in a plain-error analysis on his behalf.

2026Although Mr. Noel 7 has attempted to raise plain error in his reply brief, “‘an appellant may not assert a claim of plain error for the first time in a reply brief.’” State v. Andrews, 2020-Ohio-2703, ¶ 51 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Irvine, 2019-Ohio-959, fn. 1 (9th Dist.). {¶21} Even if Mr. Noel had presented a plain error argument on appeal, there is no showing on the record of “an error, i.e., a deviation from the legal rule” during the trial testimony of Ms. Horst.

2023Summit No. 28998, 2019-Ohio-959, fn.1 .

2025“If a defendant fails to renew his Crim.R. 14 motion, he forfeits the issue on appeal, all but for a claim of plain error.” State v. Rice, 2016-Ohio-8443, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Garcia, 2016-Ohio-4667, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.). {¶16} “Notice of plain error . . . is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Gordon, 2018-Ohio- 259, ¶ 23, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2016However, Mr. Rice has not argued plain error on appeal. “[T]his Court will not construct a claim of plain error on [Mr. Rice’s] behalf if [he] fails to argue plain error on appeal.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) See Id.