holding that appellate courts will review only for plain error those claims that were not preserved at trial
How later courts described this case
- holding that appellate courts will review only for plain error those claims that were not preserved at trial
- a Despite Toudle’s assertion that defense counsel objected to Dr. Carson’s testimony about the 2 OARRS report, the record demonstrates that counsel never objected. She merely confirmed with Dr. Carson that he had offered testimony about the contents of the report even though it was not prepared by him. failure to object at trial constitutes a waiver of all but plain error on the issues on appeal
- it is axiomatic that arguments which are not raised in the trial court are waived for purposes of appeal
- arguments that are not raised in the trial court are waived for purposes of appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Gillard, 40 Ohio St. 3d 226 (1988)
51 Ohio St.2d 112, 117 , 364 N.E.2d 1364 (1977), superseded on other grounds by State v. Gillard, 40 Ohio St.3d 226 , 533 N.E.2d 272
The opinion
Locher, J.,
concurring in judgment only. This decision is hut a prelude to the score of forthcoming judicial waltzes necessitated by continued adherence to State v. Robinson (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 103 .
The majority’s opinion aptly alleviates the visible symptoms and arrives at the correct judgment, but the underlying malady remains untreated. This cosmetic treatment of the instant cause not only infers acceptance of, but is- a direct result of, State v. Robinson, supra.
I must, therefore, concur in the judgment only for the reasons I have stated in State v. Humphries (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 95 .