Ohio v. Chrisman

222 N.E.2d 649, 9 Ohio St. 2d 27, 38 Ohio Op. 2d 16, 1966 Ohio LEXIS 288
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 28, 1966·No. No. 40337·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

222 N.E.2d 649 (Ohio v. Chrisman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Culp
288 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1971)
Village of Pepper Pike v. LaMaida
268 N.E.2d 296 (Shaker Heights Municipal Court, 1970)
State v. Walker
252 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1969)