green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 12×
80.3 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kittis v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions given by a trial judge.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harmon v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
in this case, the reference to the defendant's prior arrests was fleeting and was promptly followed by a curative instruction. the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a mistrial.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Penn
a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Harmon
in this case, the reference to the defendant's prior arrests was fleeting and was promptly followed by a curative instruction. the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a mistrial.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Jackson
a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Secessions
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Davis
ersons are presumed to have intended the natural, reasonable and probable consequences of their voluntary acts.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Brown
the decision whether to grant or deny a mistrial 'lies within the sound discretion of the trial court
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Brown
the decision whether to grant or deny a mistrial 'lies within the sound discretion of the trial court
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Fenderson
a jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dixon v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
information coming from a citizen eyewitness is presumed credible and reliable, and supplies a basis for a finding of probable cause in compliance with
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Knoefel
doctrine is not applicable" where the reviewing court does "not find multiple instances of harmless error
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Beatty
Under the cumulative-error doctrine; “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bullock
As we have already said, a mistrial is warranted only "when the ends of justice so require and a fair trial is no longer possible." Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d at 59. {¶ 42} York's reference to Vietnam was a spontaneous observation meant to convey the depth of the victim's fear.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
“Because intent exists ‘within the privacy of a person’s own thoughts, [it] is not susceptible of objective proof.’” State v. Mattox, 2025-Ohio-239, ¶ 32 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Edmond
The cumulative-error doctrine provides that “a trial court’s judgment may be reversed if the cumulative effect of multiple errors prevents a fair trial even though each of the individual errors, standing alone, would not constitute grounds for reversal.” Marrs v. Mickel, 2023-Ohio-4528, ¶ 23 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Humphreys
“The doctrine, however, does not apply unless there are ‘multiple instances of harmless error.’” Id., quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). 60 {¶ 148} During our review, we found three errors committed by the trial court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Edwards
The cumulative error doctrine does not apply where the defendant “cannot point to ‘multiple instances of harmless error.’” See State v. Mammone, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 148 , quoting Garner at 64. {¶70} While Edwards argues he was deprived of a fair trial because of the trial court’s cumulative errors, we have determined none of his individual assignments of error have merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sanabria
Although Ohio recognizes the cumulative error doctrine, it simply does not apply where the defendant "cannot point to multiple instances of harmless error." State v. Roman-Navarre, 2025-Ohio-3156, ¶ 132 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Mammone, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 148 , quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). {¶45} Further, this Court has stated: [A] cumulative-error analysis aggregates only actual errors to determine their cumulative effect.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rose
Cumulative Error {¶ 54} In his fourth and final assignment of error, Rose asserts that the outcome of the case was affected by cumulative error. {¶ 55} The cumulative error doctrine states that a conviction will be reversed where “the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Barker
Thus, Appellant’s counsel was not ineffective for agreeing to join the two offenses for trial. {¶62} Accordingly, Appellant’s second assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. {¶63} Appellant’s third assignment of error states: THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF COUNSEL’S INEFFECTIVENESS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. {¶64} Finally, Appellant asserts that even if the individual instances of defense counsel’s ineffectiveness were harmless, the cumulative effect of those errors created a prejudice to him warranting reversal of his conviction. {¶65} Under the doctrine of cumu…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Anderson
State v. Cepec, 2016-Ohio-8076, ¶ 89 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bankston
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995), citing State v. Glover, 35 Ohio St.3d 18 (1988); State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (1991); State v. Widner, 68 Ohio St.2d 188, 190 (1981). {¶ 39} A jury is presumed to follow the curative instructions given by a trial judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kitto
State v. Powell, 2012-Ohio-2577, ¶ 154 , citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995). {¶ 78} The trial court instructed the jury and specifically stated that statements made during closing arguments are not evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Maynard
(2×)
“A trial court must declare a mistrial only ‘when the ends of justice so require and a fair trial is no longer possible.’ ” State v. Adams, 2015- Ohio-3954, ¶ 198, quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995); accord State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-791 , ¶ 160 (“The granting of a mistrial is necessary only when a fair trial is no longer possible”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Fails
Cumulative Error {¶ 70} Fails’s sixth assignment of error states as follows: The cumulative errors during the trial warrant reversal. {¶ 71} Pursuant to the cumulative error doctrine, “a conviction will be reversed where 28 the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
The doctrine is inapplicable unless there are “multiple instances of harmless error.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). {¶ 80} Having found no errors in the record before us, we cannot find cumulative error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
Under the cumulative-error doctrine, “ ‘a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of Jackson App. No. 23CA19 22 trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.’ ” State v. Fannon, 2018-Ohio-5242, ¶124 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Roman-Navarre
However, the doctrine does not apply where the defendant “cannot point to multiple instances of harmless error.” State v. Mammone, 2014-Ohio-1942, ¶ 148 , quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). {¶133} To the extent that any claimed error by the trial court was harmless, the cumulative effect of such errors was likewise harmless, as they did not materially affect the verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Richardson
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6 THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS COMMITTED IN THIS CASE DEPRIVED APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL. {¶89} Under the doctrine of cumulative error, “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams
Id., citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Chicharro
Nevertheless, “[i]nformation coming from a citizen eyewitness is presumed credible and reliable, and supplies a basis for a finding of probable cause in compliance with Gates[, 462 U.S. 213 ].” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 63 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sheppard
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 (1995); Wallen, 21 Ohio App.2d at 34 ; Ashcraft, ¶ 22. {¶33} Here, Sheppard admitted that he intentionally wrote the letters to T.R. because he wanted to have a romantic relationship with her. 2T. at 151.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dodridge
Standard of Review {¶97} Under the cumulative error doctrine, “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Ruble, 2017-Ohio-7259, ¶ 75 (4th Dist.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Woodfork
Under the cumulative- error doctrine, “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Ruble, 2017-Ohio-7259, ¶ 75 (4th Dist.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jacks
Jacks claims that the trial court’s decision in that regard was an abuse of discretion that violated her constitutional right of confrontation. -14- Standard of Review {¶ 31} “Decisions granting or denying motions for mistrial are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” In re K.C., 2025-Ohio-1203, ¶ 49 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevens Jr v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain No. 11CA010138, 2012-Ohio-3195, ¶ 37 , quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Price
“If an error occurs, such as the jury hearing improper testimony, the ‘jury is presumed to follow the instructions, including curative instructions, given it by a trial judge.”’ Cepec, 2016-Ohio-8076, at ¶ 89 , quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995) (trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to declare a mistrial when improper testimony was fleeting and promptly followed by a curative instruction).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
The doctrine is inapplicable unless there are “multiple instances of harmless error.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). {¶ 53} Having found no errors in the record before us, we cannot find cumulative error.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Petzke
State v. Leu, 2019-Ohio-3404, ¶ 56 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). {¶ 94} Upon review, having found that Petzke has not demonstrated any errors on appeal, we find the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sida
“The intent with which an act is committed may be inferred from the act itself and the surrounding circumstances, including acts and statements of a defendant.” Asp, 2023-Ohio-290, at ¶ 40 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hodges
IV. {¶69} In his final assignment of error, appellant asserts that SCIOTO, 24CA4061 42 the cumulative effect of the trial court’s error created reversible error that warrants reversal. {¶70} Under the cumulative-error doctrine, “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), citing State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191 (1987), paragrap…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hughes
Cumulative Error Deprived Appellant of Fair Trial {¶64} In his fifth assignment of error, Hughes argues that what he describes as cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial. {¶65} The doctrine of cumulative error provides that “a conviction will be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though each of numerous instances of trial court error does not individually constitute cause for reversal.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). “‘To find cumulative error, a court must first find mu…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Griffin
Cumulative-Error Doctrine In Griffin’s third and final assignment of error, he argues that “[u]nder the cumulative error doctrine, a conviction should be reversed where the cumulative effect of errors deprives a defendant of the constitutional right to a fair trial even though the errors when viewed individually may not constitute cause for reversal.” In State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995), the Ohio Supreme Court stated that the cumulative-error “doctrine is not applicable to the case at bar as we do not find multiple instances of harmless error.” In following Garner, we fin…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Edwards
“A jury is presumed to follow the instructions given to it by a trial court.” State v. Griffin, 2024-Ohio-4894 , ¶ 140 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Garner 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 59 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Perkins
The jury was free to attribute more credibility to the testimony of C.P., M.H., NP Gorsuch, and Ms. Wilson over that of Appellant and Ms. Pastore. {¶96} Accordingly, we find that Appellant’s fourth assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled. {¶97} In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant asserts: THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE ERRORS AT TRIAL, EVEN IF SINGULARLY INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL, TOGETHER DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. {¶98} Under the doctrine of cumulative error, “a conviction will be reversed where the…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mattox
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Because intent exists “within the privacy of a person’s own thoughts, is not susceptible of objective proof.” State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 (1995).
The State of Ohio
v.
Beeman
v.
Beeman
Nos. 94-1483 and 94-1484.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Nov 22, 1995.
74 Ohio St. 3d 49
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Melody A. White and Karen L. Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant., John P. Parker, for appellee Sandra Beeman in case No. 94-1483., Mark J. Gardner, for appellee Gary L. Beeman in case No. 94-1484.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Would, Wright.
Published
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reason that there is no final appealable order.