Ohio v. Chrisman

Ohio Supreme Court

Ohio v. Chrisman

222 N.E.2d 649, 9 Ohio St. 2d 27, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 16, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 288

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1966

DocketNo. 40337

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 N.E.2d 649 (Ohio v. Chrisman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ohio v. Chrisman, 222 N.E.2d 649, 9 Ohio St. 2d 27, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 16, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 288 (Ohio 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant presents the question whether the original defective affidavit was amendable, and whether counsel may agree to the amendment of such affidavit, waive the re-swearing and proceed to trial on schedule. He admits that “counsel should have objected # * * but did not do so at the time of trial through oversight, nor did he object to it upon review.”

The defendant, by his counsel, specifically consenting to the method of amendment and continuing his plea of not guilty and proceeding with the trial, waived objection to the want of verification. See State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471; State v. Park (1962), 174 Ohio St. 81; and City of Cleveland v. Ely (1963), 174 Ohio St. 403.

The motion to certify the record is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Taut, O. J., ZimmermAN, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Herbert, Schheideb. and Browh, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI