explaining that, to constitute plain error, “[t]he alleged error must have ‘substantially affected the outcome of the trial,’ such that ‘but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise[.]’”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, to constitute plain error, “[t]he alleged error must have ‘substantially affected the outcome of the trial,’ such that ‘but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise[.]’”
- finding no bias in part because the trial judge interrupted both sides a similar number of times and asked many witnesses questions
- “The decision whether to grant or deny a mistrial ‘lies within the sound discretion of the trial court’ ”
- 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
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’Neill, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in State v. Wogenstahl, 134 Ohio St.3d 1437 , 2013-Ohio-164 , 981 N.E.2d 900 .