Ohio Supreme Court June 18, 1997, No. 96-536 (State v. Henness)

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

In this capital case, appellant presents twenty-five propositions of law for our consideration. (See Appendix.) Pursuant to R.C. 2929.05(A), we have carefully reviewed all issues raised. However, we summarily reject several of these arguments on the grounds that they either were not preserved, involve settled issues, or our independent review cures the error, if any.