counters that, although he did not raise a pros-ecutorial misconduct claim based on the above-cited prosecutorial comments, he did raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim to the Ohio Supreme Court. Further, petitioner claims that, so long as he “fairly presented” a claim to state court, he has satisfied the exhaustion requirement pursuant to Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). ' While petitioner’s assertion is not invalid, he fails-to acknowledge a corollary to the exhaustion requirement — “that the doctrine of exhaustion requires that a claim be presented to the state courts under the same theory in which it is later presented to federal court.” Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313, 322 (6th Cir.1998); see also Alley v. Bell, 307 F.3d 380, 386 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Because he cannot demonstrate cause for
holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that a claim including a constitutional claim must have been asserted to the trial court to be raised on appeal holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court holding that constitutional claim must be fairly presented to state court in order to satisfy exhaustion requirement