State v. Keenan
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
I
In his second proposition of law, Keenan complains of misconduct by the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney during the guilt-phase closing argument. This proposition has merit. “The conduct of a prosecuting attorney during trial cannot be made a ground of error unless the conduct deprives defendant of a fair trial.” State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19, 24, 514 N.E.2d 394, 400. Thus, although we have “express[ed] our mounting alarm over the increasing incidence of misconduct * * * in capital cases,” we have not treated prosecutorial misconduct as reversible error “except in rare…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Darden v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Smith v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. ApanovitchOhio Supreme Court · 1987
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by304 opinions
- State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. MasonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
299 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.