State v. Yanez, 2017 Ohio 7209

Defendant Juan Yanez was tried on two related criminal matters: a jury trial for two counts of felonious assault and aggravated robbery (he was convicted of one count of felonious assault), and a separate case in which he pled guilty to burglary and possessing criminal tools; sentencing occurred in a single hearing.
Incident facts: Yanez was found after two men were stabbed; one victim said Yanez approached from behind, displayed a knife, demanded a wallet, and stabbed him; others chased and struggled with Yanez, who stabbed a second person before his knife was wrested away.
Yanez claimed self-defense at trial, testifying he was attacked, beaten, and defended himself; testimony conflicted with victims and officers (officers observed Yanez was not injured).
Yanez also raised prosecutorial-misconduct claims based on cross-examination about prior burglary convictions, closing-argument remarks about a police conspiracy and credibility, and a prosecutor’s personal comment about hearing fear in a 9-1-1 call.
Yanez challenged imposition of court costs for both cases, arguing costs were not imposed at the sentencing hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yanez proved self-defense to negate felonious assault conviction	State: evidence (victims, officers, 9-1-1) shows assaults, not self-defense	Yanez: he was attacked and only stabbed in self-defense	Court: Jury credited state’s witnesses; substantial conflicting evidence; conviction affirmed
Whether prosecutor’s questioning about prior burglary convictions and items constituted misconduct	State: questioning was proper impeachment and related to charges and credibility	Yanez: questions suggested uncharged/intentional burglary and unfairly attacked credibility; closing remarks improperly suggested police conspiracy and disparaged defendant	Court: No plain error; questions and remarks were within permissible impeachment and argument scope; not prejudicial
Whether prosecutor’s statement referencing his own perception of fear on 9-1-1 call was prosecutorial misconduct	State: comment addressed evidence and caller’s demeanor	Yanez: prosecutor improperly injected personal view, prejudicing jury	Court: Comment was imprudent but not plain error; jury instructions allowed independent assessment; no different outcome shown
Whether trial court erred by imposing court costs only in the entry and not at sentencing	State: court actually announced court costs at sentencing	Yanez: claimed costs were not imposed at the hearing	Court: Trial court expressly ordered costs at sentencing; complies with State v. Joseph; no error

State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (2006) (standard for reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct requires impropriety and prejudice to substantial rights)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (trial court must impose court costs at the sentencing hearing; entry alone is insufficient)