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 1975–2026 4 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. Ebersolegreen2 sentences2012“Before concluding there has been a waiver, the court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself and that there are dangers in self-representation.” State v. Ebersole (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 [, 668 N.E.2d 934 ]. {¶ 11} And in State v. Hughley, 8th Dist. 2012“Before concluding there has been a waiver, the court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself and that there are dangers in self-representation.” State v. Ebersole (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 [, 668 N.E.2d 934 ]. {¶ 11} And in State v. Hughley, 8th Dist. | 2 | 32 |
State v. Boatwrightgreen1 sentence2026See Crim.R. 2(C), (D); State v. Boatwright, 2020-Ohio-5068, ¶ 12 (7th Dist.) {¶10} Before a defendant can waive the right to counsel, the trial court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right knowing that he will have to represent himself. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ngakagreen1 sentence2025“The defendant must make an intelligent and voluntary waiver with the knowledge he will have to represent himself, and the dangers inherent in self- representation.” State v. Ngaka, 2020-Ohio-3106, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.). {¶78} Crim.R. 44(C) further provides that the waiver must be done in open court, recorded, and in writing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen1 sentence2025“The failure to execute a written waiver is harmless error where the trial court engages in a sufficient colloquy to determine whether the defendant fully understands and intelligently relinquishes the right to counsel.” State v. Walker, 2025-Ohio-975, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Wallace, 2024-Ohio-4886, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.), citing Martin at ¶ 40 . {¶79} Here, Thompson contends that the court engaged in no meaningful colloquy with him to determine if his waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2025“The failure to execute a written waiver is harmless error where the trial court engages in a sufficient colloquy to determine whether the defendant fully understands and intelligently relinquishes the right to counsel.” State v. Walker, 2025-Ohio-975, ¶ 34 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Wallace, 2024-Ohio-4886, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.), citing Martin at ¶ 40 . {¶79} Here, Thompson contends that the court engaged in no meaningful colloquy with him to determine if his waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Koons, 06-Co-67 (9-25-2007)green1 sentence2024See also State v. Koons, 2007-Ohio-4985, ¶ 13 (7th Dist.) (“Before a defendant can waive the right to counsel, the trial court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right knowing that he will have to represent himself.”). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2004See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (“[T]he dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied” in this case by “barring use of the unwarned statement” and “[n]o further purpose is served by imputing ‘taint’ to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver”). {¶ 35} For the foregoing reasons, we reject Dixon’s first proposition of law. 2004See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (“[T]he dictates of Miranda and the goals of the Fifth Amendment proscription against use of compelled testimony are fully satisfied” in this case by “barring use of the unwarned statement” and “[n]o further purpose is served by imputing ‘taint’ to subsequent statements obtained pursuant to a voluntary and knowing waiver”). {¶ 35} For the foregoing reasons, we reject Dixon’s first proposition of law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2022State v. Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 , 668 N.E.2d 934 (3rd Dist. 1995), citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). {¶27} Because courts indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, waiver of counsel must affirmatively appear on the record. 1998"Before the right to counsel can be waived, a court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself, and, also, he should be informed of the dangers inherent in self-representation." Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d at 293 , citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 and State v. Gibson (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 366 . | 21 | 1998–2022 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences2020State v. Ebersole (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 , 668 N.E.2d 934 , citing Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ; Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 . 1998"Before the right to counsel can be waived, a court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself, and, also, he should be informed of the dangers inherent in self-representation." Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d at 293 , citing Faretta, 422 U.S. 806 and State v. Gibson (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 366 . | 10 | 1995–2020 |
Von Moltke v. Gillies
green
2 sentences2018State v. Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 , 668 N.E.2d 934 (3rd Dist.1995), citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). {¶ 17} In Gibson, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court applied the test set forth in Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948), which established the requirements for a sufficient pretrial inquiry by the trial court into a waiver of counsel: Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00219 6 To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, th 2018State v. Ebersole, 107 Ohio App.3d 288, 293 , 668 N.E.2d 934 (3rd Dist.1995), citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). {¶ 17} In Gibson, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court applied the test set forth in Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 , 68 S.Ct. 316 , 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948), which established the requirements for a sufficient pretrial inquiry by the trial court into a waiver of counsel: Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00219 6 To be valid such waiver must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, th | 9 | 1999–2018 |
Brewer v. Williams
green
2 sentences2008Brewer v. Williams (1977), 430 U.S. 387 ; Johnson, supra. Therefore, before a defendant can waive the right to counsel, the court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself. 2005Brewer v. Williams (1977), 430 U.S. 387 , 97 S.Ct. 1232 , 51 L.Ed.2d 424 ; Johnson, supra. Therefore, before a defendant can waive the right to counsel, the court must be satisfied that the defendant made an intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right with the knowledge that he will have to represent himself. | 3 | 2005–2008 |
State v. Bell
red
2 sentences1978Such criteria necessarily varies with certain factors as the age, emotional stability, physical condition, and mental capacity of the minor.” However, where a minor is “adjudicated competent to stand trial as an adult * * * [he] is not afforded as much protection as a very young or disabled child who is not as capable of intelligently waiving his rights.” State v. Bell, supra. Upon a careful review of the record, we are satisfied that the statements by appellant were made “pursuant to an intelligent and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights of which he was fully advised, giving due reg 1978Such criteria necessarily varies with certain factors as the age, emotional stability, physical condition, and mental capacity of the minor.” However, where a minor is “adjudicated competent to stand trial as an adult * * * [he] is not afforded as much protection as a very young or disabled child who is not as capable of intelligently waiving his rights.” State v. Bell, supra. Upon a careful review of the record, we are satisfied that the statements by appellant were made “pursuant to an intelligent and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights of which he was fully advised, giving due reg | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Griffey
green
2 sentences1975The dissenters maintained that the Boykin enumeration of rights was illustrative, not exhaustive, and that the decision of this court in State v. Griffey, supra ( 35 Ohio St. 2d 101 ), seemed to recognize the need to accommodate additional constitutional rights óther than the three mentioned in Boykin . 1975The dissenters maintained that the Boykin enumeration of rights was illustrative, not exhaustive, and that the decision of this court in State v. Griffey, supra ( 35 Ohio St. 2d 101 ), seemed to recognize the need to accommodate additional constitutional rights óther than the three mentioned in Boykin . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.