Legal Opinion

State v. Keenan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1993No. 91-438PublishedCited by 304 opinions

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

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Darden v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Smith v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. State v. ApanovitchOhio Supreme Court · 1987

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by304 opinions

  1. State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. LaMarOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  5. State v. MasonOhio Supreme Court · 1998

299 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API