# State v. Cantlebarry

> Ohio Court of Appeals · August 28, 1990 · 69 Ohio App. 3d 216

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3711165

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. CANTLEBARRY, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 69 Ohio App. 3d 216; 590 N.E.2d 342; 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 3811
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Young
- **Judges:** Reilly, Young, Koehler, Twelfth
- **Cited by:** 11 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/3711165

## Opinion text

John C. Young, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I concur in the court’s disposition of the first and second assignments of error, I must respectfully dissent from the court’s finding in the third assignment of error that the prosecutor’s improper remarks in rebuttal closing argument prejudicially affected defendant’s substantial rights.
Prosecutors are granted wide latitude in closing argument and the effect of any prosecutorial misconduct must be considered in light of the whole case.
State v. Maurer
(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 15 OBR 379, 473 N.E.2d 768 . Upon review of the record, I find that, although the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, I do not consider the remarks, standing alone, to have prejudiced defendant or the have risen to the level of plain error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3711165. Public record. Not legal advice.