State v. Luciano, 2011 Ohio 2607

Luciano and his brother were at Vic’s Nightclub; security screened patrons at entry with wand and pat-downs.
Luciano allegedly got into a dispute at the entrance, leading to a physical altercation with security guards.
A security guard sustained a serious facial cut during the incident.
Luciano was indicted on two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2)); trial resulted in convictions on both, later merged as allied offenses.
The court of appeals reversed the convictions due to improper trial court comments and misapplication of Rule 16(B)(1)(g); case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court comments about the evidence	Luciano claims the judge vouched for witnesses and bolstered the State’s case.	Luciano asserts prejudice from prejudicial, unsolicited commentary in front of the jury.	Reversed on prejudice from judge's comments
Rule 16(B)(1)(g) procedure misstatement	Luciano argues the court’s explanation of Rule 16(B)(1)(g) improperly commented on evidence and credibility.	Luciano contends the procedure was proper or harmless.	Plain error; improper procedure bolstered State’s witnesses
Prosecutorial misconduct and weight of the evidence	Luciano asserts prosecutorial misconduct and weight-of-evidence challenges.	State contends arguments were proper and not against weight of the evidence.	Moot due to resolution of issue I

State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St. 2d 182 (Ohio 1978) (factors for judge's comments affecting a fair trial)
State ex rel. Wise v. Chand, 21 Ohio St. 2d 113 (Ohio 1970) (jury decides witness credibility; trial court must not encroach)
Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614 (U.S. Supreme Court 1894) (judge must separate law from facts; opinions should not usurp jury)
State v. Raglin, 83 Ohio St.3d 253 (Ohio 1998) (presumed jury follows curative instructions; caution against judge's demeanor)