Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2024Trial courts are not required to recite Rule 11(C)(2)(c) in a rote manner, and “failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to [a] plea.” Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d at 480 . 2022Ballard at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 17} Therefore, “a rote recitation of Crim.R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea.” Id. at 480 . “ ‘[A] trial court can still convey the requisite information on constitutional rights to the defendant even when the court does not provide a word-for-word recitation of [Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)], so long as the trial court actually explains the rights to the defendant.’ ” State v. Courtney, 2d Dist. | 2 | 34 |
Malloy v. Hogangreen1 sentence2024Instead, when reviewing whether a trial court complied with the Rule, this Court must concentrate on “whether the record shows that the trial court explained or referred to the right in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant.” Id. {¶14} The privilege against self-incrimination is found in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides, in part, that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” The Fifth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants “the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the | 1 | 1 |
Estelle v. Smithgreen1 sentence2024Instead, when reviewing whether a trial court complied with the Rule, this Court must concentrate on “whether the record shows that the trial court explained or referred to the right in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant.” Id. {¶14} The privilege against self-incrimination is found in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides, in part, that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” The Fifth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants “the right ‘to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. United Statesred2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ballard at 480 (“failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea” and “[t]o hold otherwise would be to elevate formalistic litany of constitutional rights over the substance of the dialogue between the trial court and the accused”); State v. Billups, 57 Ohio St.2d 31, 38-39 , 385 N.E.2d 1308 (1979), quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, fn. 20 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (in determining whether there has been substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), “‘(m)atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling’”). 2019See, e.g., Ballard at 480 (“failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea” and “[t]o hold otherwise would be to elevate formalistic litany of constitutional rights over the substance of the dialogue between the trial court and the accused”); State v. Billups, 57 Ohio St.2d 31, 38-39 , 385 N.E.2d 1308 (1979), quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, fn. 20 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (in determining whether there has been substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), “‘(m)atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling’”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Veneygreen2 sentences2018Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2008-Ohio-5200 , 897 N.E.2d 621 at ¶ 30. {¶ 10} Although the trial court must strictly comply with this portion of the rule, the failure to recite the exact language of the rule will not invalidate a plea if the record demonstrates the court actually explained each constitutional right in a reasonably intelligible manner. 2018Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2008-Ohio-5200 , 897 N.E.2d 621 at ¶ 30. {¶ 10} Although the trial court must strictly comply with this portion of the rule, the failure to recite the exact language of the rule will not invalidate a plea if the record demonstrates the court actually explained each constitutional right in a reasonably intelligible manner. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nerogreen1 sentence2009See Nero , supra. "Crim. R. 11(C)(2) only requires that court to apprise an accused of the nature of the crime charged, not the substantive elements. *** In State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , the court stated: `***We hold that a rote recitation of Crim. R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 , 88-89 , 364 N.E.2d 1163 ; State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423 N.E.2d 115 , paragraph one of the syllabus. `Strict compliance' does not require a rote recitation of the exact language of the rule; rather, the focus on review is whether the `record shows that the judge explained these rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant.' State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423 N.E.2d 115 , paragraph two of the syllabus. 2001See State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 , 88-89 , 364 N.E.2d 1163 ; State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423 N.E.2d 115 , paragraph one of the syllabus. `Strict compliance' does not require a rote recitation of the exact language of the rule; rather, the focus on review is whether the `record shows that the judge explained these rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant.' State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423 N.E.2d 115 , paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barker
green
2 sentences2022Clark No. 2013-CA-73, 2014-Ohio-1659, ¶ 8 , quoting Veney at ¶ 27. -9- {¶ 18} In State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 , 2011-Ohio-4130 , 953 N.E.2d 826 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “a trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when its explanation of the constitutional right to compulsory process of witnesses is described to the defendant during the plea colloquy as the ‘right to call witnesses to speak on your behalf.’ ” Barker at ¶ 27. 2022Clark No. 2013-CA-73, 2014-Ohio-1659, ¶ 8 , quoting Veney at ¶ 27. -9- {¶ 18} In State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 , 2011-Ohio-4130 , 953 N.E.2d 826 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “a trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when its explanation of the constitutional right to compulsory process of witnesses is described to the defendant during the plea colloquy as the ‘right to call witnesses to speak on your behalf.’ ” Barker at ¶ 27. | 2 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Courtney
green
1 sentence2022Clark No. 2013-CA-73, 2014-Ohio-1659, ¶ 8 , quoting Veney at ¶ 27. -9- {¶ 18} In State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 , 2011-Ohio-4130 , 953 N.E.2d 826 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “a trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when its explanation of the constitutional right to compulsory process of witnesses is described to the defendant during the plea colloquy as the ‘right to call witnesses to speak on your behalf.’ ” Barker at ¶ 27. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Caudill
green
2 sentences2019Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus, citing State v. Caudill, 48 Ohio St.2d 342 , 358 N.E.2d 601 (1976). 2019Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus, citing State v. Caudill, 48 Ohio St.2d 342 , 358 N.E.2d 601 (1976). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Billups
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ballard at 480 (“failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea” and “[t]o hold otherwise would be to elevate formalistic litany of constitutional rights over the substance of the dialogue between the trial court and the accused”); State v. Billups, 57 Ohio St.2d 31, 38-39 , 385 N.E.2d 1308 (1979), quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, fn. 20 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (in determining whether there has been substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), “‘(m)atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling’”). 2019See, e.g., Ballard at 480 (“failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea” and “[t]o hold otherwise would be to elevate formalistic litany of constitutional rights over the substance of the dialogue between the trial court and the accused”); State v. Billups, 57 Ohio St.2d 31, 38-39 , 385 N.E.2d 1308 (1979), quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, fn. 20 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (in determining whether there has been substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), “‘(m)atters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling’”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hussing
green
1 sentence2017No. 97972, 2012-Ohio-4938 , 2012 WL 5292878 , ¶ 19. {¶ 31} Strict compliance, however, does not require a "rote recitation of Crim.R. 11(C)," and a trial court's "failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Griggs
green
2 sentences2014Thus, “ ‘[l]iteral compliance with Crim.R. 11, in all respects, remains preferable to inexact plea hearing recitations.’ ” Clark at ¶ Pickaway App. No. 13CA7 10 29; quoting State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2004-Ohio-4415 , 814 N.E.2d 51 , ¶ 19, fn.2. {¶10} However, “a rote recitation of Crim.R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea.” Ballard at 480 . 2014Thus, “ ‘[l]iteral compliance with Crim.R. 11, in all respects, remains preferable to inexact plea hearing recitations.’ ” Clark at ¶ Pickaway App. No. 13CA7 10 29; quoting State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2004-Ohio-4415 , 814 N.E.2d 51 , ¶ 19, fn.2. {¶10} However, “a rote recitation of Crim.R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea.” Ballard at 480 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Boykin v. Alabama
red
1 sentence2009R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea." Substantial compliance means that "if under the totality of the circumstances it is apparent the defendant subjectively understood the implications of his plea, the plea should not be vacated." State v. Scruggs , Cuyahoga App. No. 83863, 2004-Ohio-3732 . {¶ 6} Pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238 and Crim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Scruggs, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2004)
green
1 sentence2009R. 11(C) is not required, and failure to use the exact language of the rule is not fatal to the plea." Substantial compliance means that "if under the totality of the circumstances it is apparent the defendant subjectively understood the implications of his plea, the plea should not be vacated." State v. Scruggs , Cuyahoga App. No. 83863, 2004-Ohio-3732 . {¶ 6} Pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238 and Crim. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Denis
green
2 sentences2007State v. Nero , supra; see, also, Sixth Amendment to the United States *Page 7 Constitution and Section 10 , Article I of the Ohio Constitution; State v. Denis (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 442 , 445 , 690 N.E.2d 955 . 2007State v. Nero , supra; see, also, Sixth Amendment to the United States *Page 7 Constitution and Section 10 , Article I of the Ohio Constitution; State v. Denis (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 442 , 445 , 690 N.E.2d 955 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Cleveland v. Wanzo
green
1 sentence1999Wanzo, supra. "Strict compliance" does not require a rote recitation of the exact language of the rule; rather, the focus on review is whether the "record shows that the judge explained these rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant." State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , paragraph 2 of the syllabus. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.