After the announcement, as provided by section 2937.02 of the Revised Code, the accused shall be arraigned by the magistrate, clerk, or prosecutor of the court reading the affidavit or complaint, or reading its substance, omitting purely formal parts, to the accused unless the reading of the affidavit or complaint is waived. The judge or magistrate shall then inquire of the accused whether the accused understands the nature of the charge. If the accused does not indicate understanding, the judge or magistrate shall give explanation in terms of the statute or ordinance claimed violated. If the accused is not represented by counsel and expresses a desire to consult with an attorney at law, the judge or magistrate shall continue the case for a reasonable time to allow the accused to send for or consult with counsel and shall set bail for the later appearance if the offense is bailable. If the accused is not able to make bail, bail is denied, or the offense is not bailable, the court or magistrate shall require the officer having custody of the accused immediately to take a message to any attorney at law within the municipal corporation where the accused is detained, or immediately to make available to the accused use of a telephone for calling to arrange for legal counsel or bail.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1960–2014 · leading case: State v. Wigglesworth, 248 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1969).
State v. Wigglesworth, 248 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 1969). · cites it 2דBecause defendant was not represented by counsel, the court, pursuant to Section 2937.03, Revised Code, continued the case until June 9, 1967.”
Brady v. Blair, 427 F. Supp. 5 (S.D. Ohio 1976). “The judge further failed to explain to petitioner the mechanics of effectuating his right to a jury trial. See former § 2937.”
State v. Domer, 204 N.E.2d 69 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1964). · cites it 2ד*157 The defendant claims that upon his arrest he was denied his constitutional and statutory right to consult with his lawyer as provided by Section 2937.03, Eevised Code (129 Ohio Laws 582, 749).”
State v. Johnson, 236 N.E.2d 552 (Ohio 1968). · cites it 2דSection 2937.03 of the Revised Code provides: “* * * the accused shall be arraigned by the magistrate, or clerk, or prosecutor of the court reading the affidavit or complaint * * The judge or magistrate shall then inquire of the accused whether he understands the nature of the…”
State v. Jackson, 190 N.E.2d 38 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1960). · cites it 2דNor is this situation covered by Section 2937.03, Revised Code, authorizing the amendment of “the warrant or information.”
State v. White, 224 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1967). · cites it 4דThe defendant, in arguing this phase of the case, cites Section 2937.03, Eevised Code (129 Ohio Laws 582, 749), as his au *275 thority for the right to counsel when interrogation is attempted after arrest and before arraignment.”
State v. Magana, 184 N.E.2d 525 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1961). · cites it 4דIn Section 2937.03 of the Revised Code, there appear the requirements that the charge must be read to the defendant unless the reading be waived; the defendant must be asked if he understands the nature of the charge and if he does not the court must give an explanation of the…”
State v. Carney, 177 N.E.2d 799 (Ohio Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 2דThe former Section 2937.03, Revised Code (Recodification Act of 1953), providing for an amendment of the warrant or information to conform to the facts and the evidence, has been repealed.”
State v. Powell, 2014-Ohio-719. “{¶8} In this case, the trial court dismissed the charges against Powell based upon the court’s erroneous presumption that a prosecuting witness was required to be present at Powell’s upcoming arraignment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.