plain error in Ohio

2026However, even when a defendant demonstrates that a plain error or defect affected the defendant’s substantial rights, the Ohio Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized that courts should “notice plain error ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus; e.g., State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 14 (“the plain-error doctrine is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent Ross 25CA9 13 injust

2026Finally, under the plain error standard of review, we must first find “‘an error — i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’ that constitutes ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings.’” Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).

2026“The plain- error doctrine ‘is not favored and may be applied 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, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’” Citibank v. Wood, 2008-Ohio-2877, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123 (1997). {¶ 31} Here, there was no error or plain error.

2026Furthermore, “[i]n appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored” and only applies “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, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” (Citations omitted.) Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus.

2026However, even when a defendant demonstrates that a plain error or defect affected the defendant’s substantial rights, the Ohio Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized that courts should “notice plain error ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus; e.g., State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 14 (“the plain-error doctrine is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent Ross 25CA9 13 injust

2026Plain error should only be recognized in “exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Hill at ¶ 46 , citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2026“Under that rule, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights.” State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-297 , ¶ 14, citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).

2025We have acknowledged the discretionary aspect of Crim.R. 52(B) by admonishing courts to notice plain error ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Barnes at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (suggesting that appellate courts correct a plain error “if the PAGE 8 OF 13 Case No. 2024-P-0080 error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’” quoting United States v. A

2026Pickaway App. No. 25CA16 8 {¶16} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish each of the following: (1) “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule’” occurred; (2) the error was “‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings’”; and (3) this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “‘must have affected the outcome of the [proceedings].’” State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 (1982) (“A ‘plain error’ is obvious and prejudicial althoug

2026Resources, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 2015-Ohio-3731, ¶ 27 (reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited constitutional challenges); Scioto 25CA4149 16 State v. Pyles, 2015-Ohio-5594 , ¶ 82 (7th Dist.), quoting State v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-1541, ¶ 65 (7th Dist.) (the plain-error doctrine “‘is a wholly discretionary doctrine’”); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 135 (2018) (court has discretion whether to recognize plain error). {¶48} For the plain-error doctrine to apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” o

2024Stated differently, plain errors "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see also State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ("Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."). {¶ 58} The plain error doctrine should only be applied in civil appeals, which includes permanent custody cases, "in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where [the] error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the ba

2024Stated differently, plain errors "'must have affected the outcome of the trial.'" Id., quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see also State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ("Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise."). {¶ 58} The plain error doctrine should only be applied in civil appeals, which includes permanent custody cases, "in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where [the] error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the ba

2025“The Supreme Court of Ohio has found that an erroneous jury instruction does not meet the plain error threshold unless, ‘ “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” ’ ” State v. Brock, 2024-Ohio-1036, ¶ 30 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. McCown, 2006-Ohio-6040, ¶ 38 (10th Dist.), in turn quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Cunningham, 2004-Ohio-7007, ¶ 56 , citing State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (1983), syllabus.

2025Plain error is an obvious error or defect in the trial court proceedings, affecting substantial rights, which, “but for the error, the outcome of the trial court clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Barton, 2004-Ohio-3058, ¶ 46 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12, 13 ; Crim.

2026“Plain error is not found unless it can be concluded that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id., citing State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 (1996). “‘Notice of plain error “is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’” Id., quoting State v. Haney, 2006-Ohio-3899, ¶ 50 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 13} With this standard in mind, we address the alleged defects in the indictment.

2026“Plain error is not found unless it can be concluded that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id., citing State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 (1996). “‘Notice of plain error “is to be taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’” Id., quoting State v. Haney, 2006-Ohio-3899, ¶ 50 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 13} With this standard in mind, we address the alleged defects in the indictment.

2026Plain error should be found only in “exceptional 20. circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 (2001), citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 64} Koonce did not object to the trial court’s failure to give a cautionary instruction.

2025“Plain error should be found only in exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id., citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 (2001). {¶ 40} McClain has failed to identify the existence of plain error in this case.

2024For the plain error doctrine to Washington App. Nos. 23CA7 and 23CA8 37 apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “ ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” occurred, (2) that the error was “ ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’ ” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “ ‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’ ” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.

2024For the plain error doctrine to Washington App. Nos. 23CA7 and 23CA8 37 apply, the party claiming error must establish (1) that “ ‘an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” occurred, (2) that the error was “ ‘an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings,’ ” and (3) that this obvious error affected substantial rights, i.e., the error “ ‘must have affected the outcome of the trial.’ ” State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 209 , 436 N.

2026“Indeed, the plain error doctrine implicates errors in the judicial process where the error is clearly apparent on the face of the record and is prejudicial to the appellant.” Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC, v. Litter, 2010-Ohio-3325 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223 (1985). “ ‘Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.’ ” In re C.M., 2008-Ohio-2977, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58, 62 (1990).

2026“Indeed, the plain error doctrine implicates errors in the judicial process where the error is clearly apparent on the face of the record and is prejudicial to the appellant.” Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC, v. Litter, 2010-Ohio-3325 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223 (1985). “ ‘Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.’ ” In re C.M., 2008-Ohio-2977, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58, 62 (1990).

2024“Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have -18- been different.” Id., citing State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990).

2023We also agree that a plain error analysis applies here, since Morris did not object when the trial court failed to merge the convictions for sentencing purposes. {¶ 22} “Ordinarily, a failure to bring an error to the attention of the trial court at a time when the court could correct that error constitutes a waiver of all but plain error.” State v. Johnson, 164 Ohio App.3d 792 , 2005-Ohio-6826 , 844 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 , 552 N.E.2d 913 (1990). {¶ 23} “Under Crim.R. 52(B), ‘[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed

2026“Indeed, the plain error doctrine implicates errors in the judicial process where the error is clearly apparent on the face of the record and is prejudicial to the appellant.” Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC, v. Litter, 2010-Ohio-3325 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223 (1985). “ ‘Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.’ ” In re C.M., 2008-Ohio-2977, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58, 62 (1990).

2026“Indeed, the plain error doctrine implicates errors in the judicial process where the error is clearly apparent on the face of the record and is prejudicial to the appellant.” Skydive Columbus Ohio, LLC, v. Litter, 2010-Ohio-3325 , ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing Reichert v. Ingersoll, 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 223 (1985). “ ‘Plain error does not exist unless it can be said that but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.’ ” In re C.M., 2008-Ohio-2977, ¶ 50 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Moreland, 50 Ohio St.3d 58, 62 (1990).

2025Under Crim.R. 52(B), “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that a plain error affected his substantial rights.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , ¶ 14.

2025E.g., State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , ¶ 133 (where “the defense did not renew its objections at trial to the introduction of evidence” after ruling on motion in limine, it “waived all but plain error” review). {¶ 28} “If the defendant failed to raise an error affecting substantial rights at trial, an appellate court reviews the error under the plain error standard in Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2004-Ohio-297 , ¶ 14.

2025Plain error should be noticed and corrected only “if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings’[.]” Id., quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936).

2025We have acknowledged the discretionary aspect of Crim.R. 52(B) by admonishing courts to notice plain error ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Barnes at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (suggesting that appellate courts correct a plain error “if the PAGE 8 OF 13 Case No. 2024-P-0080 error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’” quoting United States v. A

2026Under a plain-error analysis, it is “the accused [that] bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record[.]” Rogers, 2015-Ohio- 2459, at ¶ 22, citing Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, at ¶ 16 .

2026Under a plain-error analysis, it is “the accused [that] bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record[.]” Rogers, 2015-Ohio- 2459, at ¶ 22, citing Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, at ¶ 16.

2024“Plain error may be invoked only in rare cases, and no error constitutes plain error unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Rutherford, 2002-Ohio-1214 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 41 (1994).

2024“Plain error may be invoked only in rare cases, and no error constitutes plain error unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v. Rutherford, 2002-Ohio-1214 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Campbell, 69 Ohio St.3d 38, 41 (1994).

2020State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16, 22 , 1998–Ohio–363, 693 N.E.2d 772 (1998), citing State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604 , 605 N.E.2d 916 (1992). {¶36} We therefore review appellant's allegations under the plain-error standard.

2020State v. White, 82 Ohio St.3d 16, 22 , 1998–Ohio–363, 693 N.E.2d 772 (1998), citing State v. Slagle, 65 Ohio St.3d 597, 604 , 605 N.E.2d 916 (1992). {¶36} We therefore review appellant's allegations under the plain-error standard.

2022Stated otherwise, "the plain error rule should not be invoked unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise." Id., citing State v. Cooperrider, 4 Ohio St.3d 226, 227 (1983). {¶ 96} Here, even assuming the complained of testimony by the caseworker was hearsay, any error in its admission did not rise to the level of plain error as mother herself testified as to her use of Suboxone and marijuana.

2022“Furthermore, an -9- Case No. 8-21-25 erroneously omitted jury instruction ‘ “does not constitute a plain error or defect under Crim.R. 52(B) unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” ʼ ˮ Wickard, quoting State v. Cooperrider, 4 Ohio St.3d 226, 227 (1983), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2026However, even when a defendant demonstrates that a plain error or defect affected the defendant’s substantial rights, the Ohio Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized that courts should “notice plain error ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus; e.g., State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 14 (“the plain-error doctrine is warranted only under exceptional circumstances to prevent Ross 25CA9 13 injust

2026Id., at ¶ 23, citing State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407 (stating that the elements of the plain-error doctrine are conjunctive; all three must apply to justify an appellate court’s intervention). {¶45} Here, Appellant cannot establish a reasonable probability that any error resulted in actual prejudice to him.

2025A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694 . {¶61} Plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel claims employ the same deferential standard of review regarding the element of prejudice.

2024This means that the “defendant must [also] show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” Id. at 694 . {¶26} Here, Appellant argues that “counsel exhibited deficient performance by failing to move for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29”, stating that a “motion for acquittal is necessary to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the State’s case for appeal, otherwise the appellate court can only review the sufficiency issue under a plain error standard.” (Appellant’s brief at 6). {¶27} A Crim.R. 29

2026See State v. West, 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 2 (reiterating the Ohio Supreme Court's position rejecting the "notion that there is any category of forfeited error that is not subject to the plain error rule's requirement of prejudicial effect on the outcome").

2026Under the plain-error standard, the defendant must show that “‘but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. West, 2022-Ohio-1556, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 .

2026In an appeal of a civil case, "the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which - 21 - Case No. C-240624 no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401 , syllabus; Calloway at ¶ 14 . {¶ 69} With regard to Civ R. 41 dismissals, "[t]he purpose of notice is to give the party who is in jeopardy of

2026“In the civil context, an appellate court only applies the plain error doctrine in ‘extremely rare cases’ when the asserted error ‘seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’ ” Id., quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 1997-Ohio-401, ¶ 24, 30 .

2024In order to satisfy the plain error standard, the appellant must show (1) there was an error (a deviation from the legal rule), (2) the error must be obvious under current law, and (3) in order to affect substantial rights as required, “the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see Shahin at ¶ 7, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS citing State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 263 (2001) (“‘Plain error’ exists only when it is clear that the result would have been otherwise but for the error.”); see also State v. Smith,

2024In order to satisfy the plain error standard, the appellant must show (1) there was an error (a deviation from the legal rule), (2) the error must be obvious under current law, and (3) in order to affect substantial rights as required, “the trial court’s error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); see Shahin at ¶ 7, 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS citing State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 263 (2001) (“‘Plain error’ exists only when it is clear that the result would have been otherwise but for the error.”); see also State v. Smith,

2024Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error by proving that the outcome would have been different absent the plain error. [State v.] Payne, [ 114 Ohio St.3d 502 . 2007- Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306 ] at ¶ 17. {¶16} This Court further held, “Courts are cautioned ‘to notice plain error “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’” Walker at ¶ 39, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2024Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating plain error by proving that the outcome would have been different absent the plain error. [State v.] Payne, [ 114 Ohio St.3d 502 . 2007- Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306 ] at ¶ 17. {¶16} This Court further held, “Courts are cautioned ‘to notice plain error “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”’” Walker at ¶ 39, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002) quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus.