# State v. Smith

> Ohio Court of Appeals · July 23, 1991 · 75 Ohio App. 3d 73

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3704610

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SMITH, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 23, 1991
- **Citations:** 75 Ohio App. 3d 73; 598 N.E.2d 878; 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 3465
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harsha
- **Judges:** Grey, Stephenson, Harsha
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3704610

## Opinion text

Harsha, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in judgment and opinion concerning appellant’s third and fourth assignments of error, but concur in judgment only otherwise. I do not believe appellant’s second assignment of error is meritorious because of trial counsel’s failure to comply with the requirement of Evid.R. 103(A) that an objection be both contemporaneous and specific.
Failure to provide the trial court with the proper basis for an objection, in this instance the strong prohibition against being a witness-advocate, results in waiver. Giannelli, Ohio Evidence Manual (1987) 21, Section 103.04(b). I believe this failure by trial counsel rises to the level of plain error under Crim.R. 52, given the holding in
Coleman, supra.
Alternatively, in conjunction with the trial counsel’s failure to object to improper closing argument, and failure to request limiting instructions, one can make a convincing argument that the
Strickland
test has been satisfied.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3704610. Public record. Not legal advice.