reasonable probability error in Ohio

2026“The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” Id., citing United States v. Dominguez, 542 U.S. at 81-83 .

2026“The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” Id., citing United States v. Dominguez, 542 U.S. at 81-83.

2026See also State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22 (holding that with respect to a plain error analysis, “[t]he accused is . . . required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice — the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims”), citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 (2004). 2.

2026“The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” Id., citing United States v. Dominguez, 542 U.S. at 81-83.

2026To prevail under the plain-error doctrine, Bailey must establish that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis added in Rogers.) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2022-Ohio-1567 , 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66 , quoting Rogers at ¶ 22; see also State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 52 .

2026To prevail under the plain-error doctrine, Bailey must establish that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis added in Rogers.) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2022-Ohio-1567 , 204 N.E.3d 459, ¶ 66 , quoting Rogers at ¶ 22; see also State v. Wilks, 154 Ohio St.3d 359 , 2018-Ohio-1562 , 114 N.E.3d 1092, ¶ 52 .

2026To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate three things: “that ‘an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’” State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 .

2026See State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 21 (“by failing to seek the merger of his convictions as allied offenses of similar import in the trial court, Rogers forfeited his allied offenses claim for appellate review”); State v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-1345, ¶ 45 (1st Dist.) (same). {¶37} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” To prevail under the plain-error doctrine, an appellant must show (1) “that an error occurred,” (2) “that the error was obvious,” and (3) “that there is a

2026We recently clarified in State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015- Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860 , that the accused is “required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 , 81–83, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).

2026We recently clarified in State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015- Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860 , that the accused is “required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 , 81–83, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004).

2026In other words, “the accused is ‘required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id., quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22.

2025As the Supreme Court clarified in State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 28, the accused is “required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice — the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 (2004); State v. Thomas, 2017-Ohio-8011, ¶ 33 .

2024See, State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶7 . {¶50} In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , (2004) (construing Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the federal analog to Crim.R. 52(B)).

2024See, State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶7 . {¶25} In order to show that an error affected substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice - the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.” (Emphasis deleted.) State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22, citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , (2004) (construing Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), the federal analog to Crim.R. 52(B)).

2026See Morris, 2014-Ohio-5052 , at ¶ 29, quoting State v. Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146, 151 (1986), quoting State v. Ferguson, 5 Ohio St.3d 160, 166, fn. 5 (1983) (“ ‘ “the cases where imposition of harmless error is appropriate must involve either overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia that the error did not contribute to the conviction” ’ ”); Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , at ¶ 22 (emphasis in original) (under both plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant is “required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice”); Strickland v. Washi

2015Citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004), the majority correctly holds that an appellant must show only a reasonable probability that the error complained of resulted in prejudice. {¶ 32} There is a reasonable probability of prejudicial error when “the probability of a different result is ‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’ of the proceeding.” Dominguez Benitez at 83 , quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2021Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0019 13 {¶46} (Emphasis sic; citations omitted.) State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 ; see also, e.g., State v. Lynn, 129 Ohio St.3d 146 , 2011-Ohio-2722 , 950 N.E.2d 931 , ¶ 13; State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). {¶47} Appellant was charged with failing to stop after an accident pursuant to R.C. §4549.02, which provides in relevant part: (A)(1) In the case of a motor vehicle accident or collision with persons or property on a public road or highway, the operator of the motor vehicle, having kn

2021Licking County, Case No. 2021 CA 0019 13 {¶46} (Emphasis sic; citations omitted.) State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22 ; see also, e.g., State v. Lynn, 129 Ohio St.3d 146 , 2011-Ohio-2722 , 950 N.E.2d 931 , ¶ 13; State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). {¶47} Appellant was charged with failing to stop after an accident pursuant to R.C. §4549.02, which provides in relevant part: (A)(1) In the case of a motor vehicle accident or collision with persons or property on a public road or highway, the operator of the motor vehicle, having kn

2024State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-118, ¶15 (2004), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-735 (1993). {¶42} “To establish plain error under Crim.R. 52(b), [Durham] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22.

2024State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-118, ¶15 (2004), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-735 (1993). {¶22} “To establish plain error under Crim.R. 52(b), [Wycinski] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22.

2026See State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 21 (“by failing to seek the merger of his convictions as allied offenses of similar import in the trial court, Rogers forfeited his allied offenses claim for appellate review”); State v. Williams, 2025-Ohio-1345, ¶ 45 (1st Dist.) (same). {¶37} Crim.R. 52(B) provides that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” To prevail under the plain-error doctrine, an appellant must show (1) “that an error occurred,” (2) “that the error was obvious,” and (3) “that there is a

2025Accord State v. Shaffer, 2004-Ohio-3717, ¶18 (5th Dist.); State v. Cowan, 2024-Ohio-2028, ¶ 56 (3rd Dist.); State v. Howard, 2002-Ohio-2928 , *3 (2d Dist.); State v. Johnson, 2009-Ohio-3383 , ¶ 30 (10th Dist.); State v. Samueal, 2023-Ohio-3322, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.); State v. Ridenbaugh, 2024- Ohio-3072, ¶¶ 18-19 (5th Dist.). {¶45} “To establish plain error, [Roman-Navarre] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis omitted.) Stat

2025“Plain error should be noticed only ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 47 (1980), quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 18} This court has recently examined whether the State’s failure to comply with a plea agreement constitutes plain error. {¶ 19} In State v. Roby, 2022-Ohio-223 (6th Dist.), this court held that the State’s failure to remind the trial court that it was not recommending a prison term was not plain 6. erro

2025“Plain error should be noticed only ‘with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id., quoting State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St.2d 45, 47 (1980). {¶ 79} “Clearly, it is improper for evidence to be admitted that a defendant invoked his or her right to counsel.” State v. Jones, 90 Ohio St.3d 403, 414 (2000).

2022See, e.g., State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 218 ; State v. 35 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 130 ; State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 72 . {¶ 95} Accordingly, when considering plain errors, I would use the legal standard enunciated in Rogers and reiterated in Thomas: an accused seeking to show that an obvious error affected his or her substantial rights (and thereby the outcome of the accused’s trial) must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resul

2020See State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 218; State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 130 . {¶ 12} In light of the history we have recounted, the essential impossibility of meeting the proof required by Long (were its language construed strictly), the guidance from the United States Supreme Court, and recent cases of the Supreme Court of Ohio, we believe the sounder legal standard is that enunciated by Rogers and confirmed as an intentional clarification by Thomas: an accused seeking to show that an obvious error affected his or her substantial rights (and ther

2024To show plain error, appellant must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2022-Ohio- 1567, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. {¶ 31} “[T]he accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.” Rogers at ¶ 22, citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 .

2024To show plain error, appellant must demonstrate that “an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis sic.) State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279 , 2022-Ohio- 1567, ¶ 66, quoting State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. {¶ 31} “[T]he accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record.” Rogers at ¶ 22, citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 16 .

2022See, e.g., State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 218 ; State v. 35 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 130 ; State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 72 . {¶ 95} Accordingly, when considering plain errors, I would use the legal standard enunciated in Rogers and reiterated in Thomas: an accused seeking to show that an obvious error affected his or her substantial rights (and thereby the outcome of the accused’s trial) must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resul

2022See, e.g., State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , 123 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 218 ; State v. 35 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 130 ; State v. Kirkland, 160 Ohio St.3d 389 , 2020-Ohio-4079 , 157 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 72 . {¶ 95} Accordingly, when considering plain errors, I would use the legal standard enunciated in Rogers and reiterated in Thomas: an accused seeking to show that an obvious error affected his or her substantial rights (and thereby the outcome of the accused’s trial) must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resul

2023Plain error requires a showing that there was an error, i.e., a ‘“deviation from a legal rule,’” that the error was plain or obvious and that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, i.e., “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice.” Rogers at ¶ 22-23, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); see also State v. Buttery, 162 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2020- Ohio-2998, 164 N.E.3d 294, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2023Plain error requires a showing that there was an error, i.e., a ‘“deviation from a legal rule,’” that the error was plain or obvious and that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, i.e., “a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice.” Rogers at ¶ 22-23, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); see also State v. Buttery, 162 Ohio St.3d 10 , 2020- Ohio-2998, 164 N.E.3d 294, ¶ 7 , citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 .

2025State v. McAlpin, 2022- Ohio-1567, ¶ 66, citing State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. {¶19} “A trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence in any particular case, so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and evidence.” Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 (1991). {¶20} Evid.R. 404(B) provides in pertinent part: (B) Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts. (1) Prohibited Uses.

2024Hearsay {¶83} Evid.R. 801(C) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” {¶84} “[A] trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence in any particular case, so long as such discretion is exercised in line with the rules of procedure and evidence.” Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271 (1991).

2025Accord State v. Shaffer, 2004-Ohio-3717, ¶18 (5th Dist.); State v. Cowan, 2024-Ohio-2028, ¶ 56 (3rd Dist.); State v. Howard, 2002-Ohio-2928 , *3 (2d Dist.); State v. Johnson, 2009-Ohio-3383 , ¶ 30 (10th Dist.); State v. Samueal, 2023-Ohio-3322, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.); State v. Ridenbaugh, 2024- Ohio-3072, ¶¶ 18-19 (5th Dist.). {¶45} “To establish plain error, [Roman-Navarre] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis omitted.) Stat

2024Accord, State v. Shaffer, 2004-Ohio-3717, ¶18 (5th Dist.); State v. Cowan, 2024-Ohio-2028, ¶56 (3rd Dist.); State v. Howard, 2002-Ohio-2928 , *3 (2nd Dist.); State v. Johnson, 2009-Ohio-3383 , ¶30 (10th Dist.); State v. Samueal, 2023-Ohio-3322, ¶16 (1st Dist.). {¶20} “To establish plain error, [Ridenbaugh] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00087 9 omitted.) State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio

2026To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate three things: “that ‘an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’” State v. Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 .

2026“To establish plain error, [an appellant] must show that an error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,’ meaning that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” (Emphasis 19 deleted.) State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22. {¶ 47} In this case, Humphreys claims that the trial court should have disqualified Juror #10 for cause on grounds of bias.

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93 , citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (“The [appellant] is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); see also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 557-558 (1995) (ineffective assistance claim requires (1) deficient performance Case No. 25 MO 0007 – 25 – with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rend

2024Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, at ¶ 93 ; Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (only the last element, he must “demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”).

2025See Sowell, 2016-Ohio-8025 , at ¶ 138.

2023E.g., State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 , 2016-Ohio-8025 , ¶ 138, 71 N.E.3d 1034 (“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show * * * prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”).

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93 , citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (“The [appellant] is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); see also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 557-558 (1995) (ineffective assistance claim requires (1) deficient performance Case No. 25 MO 0007 – 25 – with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rend

2022Even if the party makes this showing, “in recognizing plain error in a civil case, a court must proceed with utmost caution, limiting use of the doctrine to ‘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.’ ” Jones v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 161 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2020-Ohio-3780 , 163 N.E.3d 501, ¶ 24 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93 , citing State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002); State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (“The [appellant] is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); see also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 557-558 (1995) (ineffective assistance claim requires (1) deficient performance Case No. 25 MO 0007 – 25 – with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rend

2022State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 557 , 651 N.E.2d 965 (1995), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2025Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio repeated the same standard as that adopted in Taylor-Hollingsworth and informed by Rogers and Thomas in State v. Drain, 2022-Ohio-3697, ¶ 52 , and State v. Brunson, 2022-Ohio-4299, ¶ 25 .

2024Id.; Brunson, 171 Ohio St.3d 384 at ¶ 25, 84-87, 90 , citing State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903 , 114 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 130 .