How evidentiary rulings are reviewed
Admission and exclusion of evidence are committed to the trial court's discretion. As the Supreme Court of Ohio put it in State v. Long, "[a] trial court enjoys broad discretion in admitting evidence." 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 98 (1978). But discretion does not extend to legal error. In Johnson v. Abdullah, the trial court allowed an expert to testify under a mistaken reading of the competency requirement in Evid.R. 601; the court held that the abuse of discretion standard "does not neatly apply" to a ruling resting on an erroneous view of the rule, and that "courts lack the discretion to make errors of law, particularly when the trial court's decision goes against the plain language of a statute or rule." 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 33, 39. When an evidentiary ruling turns on what a rule means, frame the issue that way.
Preserving the issue
Evid.R. 103(A) conditions any claim of evidentiary error on a ruling that affects a substantial right and on a proper record: a timely, specific objection or motion to strike when evidence comes in, and an offer of proof when evidence is kept out (unless the substance is apparent from context or the evidence was excluded on cross-examination). Once the court rules definitively on the record, the objection or offer need not be renewed. Evid.R. 103(D) preserves the court's ability to notice plain error, but that is a far narrower path. See preservation and plain error.
Jury instructions
In civil cases, Civ.R. 51(A) bars assigning error to the giving or refusal of an instruction unless the party objected before the jury retired, stating the matter and the grounds. Goldfuss v. Davidson shows the cost of silence: the defense accepted an ordinary care instruction, lost the verdict, and could not obtain reversal through civil plain error, which the court confined to "the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances." 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. In criminal cases, an unobjected instruction is reviewed under Crim.R. 52(B); in Long the court held that an erroneous self-defense burden instruction was not plain error unless the outcome clearly would have been otherwise. 53 Ohio St.2d at 97.
Harmless error and prejudice
Error alone does not win the appeal. Civ.R. 61 directs courts to disregard error that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and Crim.R. 52(A) does the same in criminal cases. The appellant must explain why the error mattered: how the excluded testimony would have filled a gap, or how the improperly admitted evidence was used in closing. In Johnson, the court affirmed a court of appeals judgment ordering a new trial because the erroneous admission of the expert testimony was not harmless. 2021-Ohio-3304 at ¶ 4, 39.
Practice pointers
- Make the proffer complete. Question and answer form, or a detailed statement, on the record.
- Get rulings, not deferrals. A tentative ruling on a motion in limine may not be definitive; renew the objection at trial unless the record shows a definitive ruling.
- Write out instruction objections. Submit proposed instructions and state each objection with its ground before deliberations.
- Argue prejudice with record citations. Tie the error to the evidence and to the verdict. See standards of review.
Recent analysis
Ohio Plain Error Requires Clear Current Law: State v. Bradley (2026)
State v. Bradley, 2026-Ohio-3771
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that an error is not plain under Crim.R. 52(B) unless it is clear under current law, and that the appellant must show the outcome would have been different, not that it may have been. An unrequested transferred self-defense instruction failed both tests, so the Seventh District's reversal was itself reversed.
Published for Ohio attorneys; not legal advice. Rules and statutes change, so confirm current text before relying on it.