Root v. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a trial court’s failure to specifically charge the jury on every element of an offense is not per se plain error, but could result in plain error if the failure substantially prejudiced the defendant
• holding that a trial court’s failure to specifically charge the jury on every element of an offense is not per se plain error, but could result in plain error if the failure substantially prejudiced the defendant
• holding that a trial court’s failure to specifically charge the jury on every element of an offense is not per se plain error, but could result in plain error if the failure substantially prejudiced the defendant
• holding that \[r]ecklessness * * * is sufficient culpability to commit the offense [of endangering children]\ because the statute does not specify any culpable mental state and does not plainly indicate a purpose to impose strict liability
• holding that a trial court’s failure to specifically charge the jury on every element of an offense is not per se plain error, but could result in plain error if the failure substantially prejudiced the defendant
• explaining that the failure 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS to object to a jury instruction results in a plain-error review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).