issue for plain error in Ohio

2016The BOE forfeited all but plain error regarding the certificate of service because it did not timely object, id., and we decided not to review the issue for plain error, 143 Ohio St.3d 1477 , 2015-Ohio-3958 , 38 N.E.3d 899 .

2016The BOE forfeited all but plain error regarding the certificate of service because it did not timely object, id., and we decided not to review the issue for plain error, 2015-Ohio-3958 .

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,

2023An error affecting substantial rights “must have affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio -8- St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

2024Accordingly, Galluzzo waived this argument he has raised for the first time on appeal, and we will only review this issue for plain error. {¶ 23} When plain error is contemplated, “we require a showing 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. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Davis, 127 Ohio St.3d 268 , 2010-Ohio-5706 , 939 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 29 .

2024Accordingly, Galluzzo waived this argument he has raised for the first time on appeal, and we will only review this issue for plain error. {¶ 23} When plain error is contemplated, “we require a showing 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. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Davis, 127 Ohio St.3d 268 , 2010-Ohio-5706 , 939 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 29 .

2025“Instead, it must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, absent the prosecutor’s comments, the jury would have found [the] defendant guilty.” Id.; State v. Knuff, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 238 (a conviction may be upheld in the face of a prosecutor’s improper remarks when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the comment). {¶40} However, when there is no objection at trial to the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, we review the issue for plain error.

2024State v. Knuff, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-902, ¶ 117 . {¶ 59} “The Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for plain-error review.” Jones, 2020-Ohio-3780, at ¶ 24 .

2026Bailey at ¶ 7 ; State v. Pondexter, 2025-Ohio-2197, ¶ 6 (5th Dist.); State v. Birchell, 2025-Ohio-26, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.).

2026Bailey at ¶ 7 ; State v. Pondexter, 2025-Ohio-2197, ¶ 6 (5th Dist.); State v. Birchell, 2025-Ohio-26, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.).

2026Different results are permissible because “the statute instructs courts to examine a defendant’s conduct—an inherently subjective determination.” Id., quoting State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio-6314, ¶ 52 (plurality opinion per Brown, C.J.). {¶ 40} Because it is undisputed that Freiburger failed to raise the issue of merger at trial, we review the issue for plain error.

2025See also State v. Holton, 2017-Ohio-6934, ¶ 39 (3d Dist.) (where an instruction pursuant to R.C. 2923.03(D) was not given at trial, but appellant did not object, appellant waived all but plain error on appeal).

2025State v. Griffin, 2020-Ohio-3707, ¶ 56 (1st Dist.).

2025See Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, at ¶ 63 . {¶61} “Generally, if a sentence falls within the terms of a valid statute, it cannot amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

2025Hence, we review the issue for plain error. {¶10} “‘The law imposes upon every litigant the duty of vigilance in the trial of a case, and even where the trial court commits an error to his prejudice, he is required then and there to challenge the attention of the court to that error, by excepting thereto, and upon failure of the court to correct the same to cause his exceptions to be noted.’” Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91, 92 (1943), quoting State v. Kollar, 93 Ohio St. 89 , 91 (1915).

2025Crim.R. 52(B) states that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Plain error is one that “ ‘rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’ ” State v. Santiago, 2003-Ohio-2877 , ¶ 11 (10th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122 (1997). “[T]he plain error rule should not be invoked unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.” Id. {¶ 62} In State v. Arnold, 2010-Ohio-2742 , the Supreme Court co

2025Crim.R. 52(B) states that “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Plain error is one that “ ‘rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.’ ” State v. Santiago, 2003-Ohio-2877 , ¶ 11 (10th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122 (1997). “[T]he plain error rule should not be invoked unless, but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise.” Id. {¶ 62} In State v. Arnold, 2010-Ohio-2742 , the Supreme Court co

2025In re L.C.C., 2018-Ohio-4617, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).

2025State v. Mosby, 2024-Ohio-5210, ¶ 63 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that where a defendant fails to challenge imposition of fines in the trial court the defendant waives all but plain error.) “‘In order prevail under a plain error analysis, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the proceedings clearly would have been different but for the error.’” State v. Wagner, 2024-Ohio-5394, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-802, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.).

2025State v. Mosby, 2024-Ohio-5210, ¶ 63 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that where a defendant fails to challenge imposition of fines in the trial court the defendant waives all but plain error.) “‘In order prevail under a plain error analysis, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the proceedings clearly would have been different but for the error.’” State v. Wagner, 2024-Ohio-5394, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-802, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.).

2025Nicholson at ¶ 281 (opening statements); State v. Ballew, 76 Ohio St.3d 244, 254-255 , 1996-Ohio-81 (1996) (closing arguments); Crim.R. 52(B).

2025State v. Mosby, 2024-Ohio-5210, ¶ 63 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that where a defendant fails to challenge imposition of fines in the trial court the defendant waives all but plain error.) “‘In order prevail under a plain error analysis, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the outcome of the proceedings clearly would have been different but for the error.’” State v. Wagner, 2024-Ohio-5394, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-802, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.).

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,

2024Nationstar Mortg., L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-439 at ¶ 21 , citing State v. Gavin, 2015-Ohio-2996, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-4034, ¶ 17-20 (an appellate court need not consider plain error where appellant fails to timely raise plain-error claim).