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.

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.

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 .

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).

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

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 .

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.

2026The defendant 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., quoting 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 . {¶79} 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 . {¶81} 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).

2021However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” However, even if the error is obvious, it must have affected substantial rights, and “[w]e have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective as

2021However, the accused bears the burden of proof to demonstrate plain error on the record, and must show “an error, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule” that constitutes “an ‘obvious’ defect in the trial proceedings,” However, even if the error is obvious, it must have affected substantial rights, and “[w]e have interpreted this aspect of the rule to mean that the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial.” The accused is therefore required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice—the same deferential standard for reviewing ineffective as

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). {¶63} “To establish plain error under Crim.R. 52(b), [Newlon] 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

2026But we may not rehabilitate counsel’s performance with “‘post hoc rationalization’ for counsel’s decisionmaking that contradicts the available evidence of counsel’s actions.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 109 (2011), quoting Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 526-527 (2003). {¶28} Wolfert argues that counsel’s performance was deficient because conceding guilt to “multiple felonies” during his opening statement contradicted 3 In his appellate brief, Wolfert cites Strickland and argues that the concessions “are deficient for several reasons,” and “[t]he prejudice from counsel’s concessions ex

2020See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (explaining the reasonable-probability standard.).

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. {¶ 35} Crim.R. 43(A)(1) provides that a defendant “must be physically present at every stage of the criminal proceeding and trial, including the impaneling of the jury, the return of the verdict, and the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by these rules.” Notwithstanding this, however, Cri

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

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.

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 .

2025Review of the entire record reveals Smith has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice to him {¶ 57} The standard for the substantial rights or prejudice prong of the plain error analysis has been stated in varying ways over the years, but this court has settled that the “sounder legal standard” is as follows: an accused seeking to show that an obvious error affected his or her substantial rights (and thereby, the outcome of the criminal proceeding) must “demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice,” such that there is a “prob

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

2020In recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that plain error is obvious and carries "a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice," such that the "probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St.3d 405 , 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 130 ; see also United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-83 (2004); State v. Tench, 156 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2018-Ohio-5205 , ¶ 218; State v. Thomas, 152 Ohio St.3d 15 , 2017-Ohio-8011, ¶ 33 ; State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 20

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 with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rendering the result unreliable

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93; see also State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22 (for plain error, 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.”); accord Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d at 557-558 (ineffective assistance claim requires deficient performance with a strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions plus prejudice rendering the result unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair). {¶106} First,

2026See State v. Suggs, 2024-Ohio-1961, ¶ 39 (9th Dist.), citing Sowell, 2016-Ohio-8025, at ¶ 138.

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

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

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 with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rendering the result unreliable

2026State v. Graham, 2020-Ohio-6700, ¶ 93; see also State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22 (for plain error, 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.”); accord Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d at 557-558 (ineffective assistance claim requires deficient performance with a strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions plus prejudice rendering the result unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair). {¶106} First,

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 .

2026State v. Keaveney-Padamonsky, 2025-Ohio-5285, ¶ 48 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Cervantes, 2022-Ohio-2536, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.); see also State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (“[T]o establish plain error, “[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.” (Emphasis in original.) (Citations omitted.)). {¶85} Under Mr. Hagwood’s second, third, and fourth assignments of error, we previously concluded that: (1) no error occurred in the admission of the mix

2025Appellant’s suggestions are not well- taken. {¶48} “[T]he prejudice standards for plain error and ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claims are the same . . . .” State v. Cervantes, 2022-Ohio-2536, ¶ 58 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Nurein, 2022-Ohio-1711, ¶ 60 (3d Dist.); State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22 (holding that, to establish plain error, “[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”).

2026To prevail, Mitchell “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 sic.) Id., quoting State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting Rogers at ¶ 22.

2026To prevail under the plain-error doctrine, Spivey “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.) Id., quoting State v. McAlpin, 2022-Ohio-1567, ¶ 66 , quoting State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 22.

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 .

2025“In order to demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show: (1) an error that is plain on the record, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule that constitutes an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and (2) that such error affected substantial rights, i.e., there was a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Barrie, 2016-Ohio-5640, ¶ 32 (10th Dist.). {¶ 34} When considering an alleged error in a jury instruction, “ ‘a reviewing court must consider the jury charge as a whole and “must determine whether the jury charge probably misled the jury in a m

2020"In order to demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show: (1) an error that is plain on the record, i.e., a deviation from a legal rule that constitutes an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and (2) that such error affected substantial rights, i.e., there was a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial." State v. Barrie, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-848, 2016-Ohio-5640, ¶ 32 .

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 with strong presumption in favor of counsel without second-guessing strategic decisions and (2) prejudice rendering the result unreliable

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