Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT v. CHRISMAN, APPELLEE.

Criminal procedure — Affidavit charging offense fatally defective — Amendment by completely rewriting and inserting by interlineation — Amendment not sworn to — Trial without objection — Objection to want of verification waived.

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 reswearing 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.

TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. CHRISMAN
(Dec 28, 1966)