State v. Bell, 2017 Ohio 7512

Nicolette Bell was indicted for felonious assault (2nd-degree felony), abduction (3rd-degree felony), and misdemeanor assault; she pleaded not guilty and trial was set as a jury trial.
Three days before trial, defense counsel filed a one‑sentence “Motion to Withdraw Jury Demand” signed by Bell; the court granted the motion and proceeded with a three‑day bench trial.
The trial court convicted Bell on all counts and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms (four years total).
On appeal Bell argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed without a valid jury waiver; she also challenged sufficiency/manifest weight and argued merger of convictions.
The State conceded the jury waiver was defective; the appellate court reviewed statutory and rule requirements for a valid waiver and found the waiver did not satisfy them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try Bell without a jury	State conceded waiver defective; court must determine compliance with waiver rules	Bell argued waiver did not strictly comply with R.C. 2945.05 and Crim.R. 23(A) and was not made in open court or knowingly	Waiver invalid: strict compliance lacking; no in‑court colloquy with defendant; bench trial jurisdiction absent; reversal and remand for new trial
Whether the written waiver satisfied R.C. 2945.05’s formalities	N/A (State conceded)	Waiver must be in writing, signed, filed, part of record, and made in open court; also substantially follow suggested language and show understanding	Waiver failed: one‑sentence motion did not substantially comply and lacked evidence defendant acknowledged waiver in open court
Whether Crim.R. 23(A) requirements were met (knowing, intelligent, voluntary)	N/A	Defendant required a colloquy with the court to establish knowing/intelligent/voluntary waiver	Requirements not met: no colloquy with Bell; no record she knowingly/voluntarily waived jury trial
Whether Bell’s failure to object at trial constituted waiver	State argued silence did not cure defect	Bell argued waiver invalid regardless of silence	Court held silent acquiescence insufficient; absence of objection does not validate defective waiver

State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350 (2007) (identifies five statutory requirements for a valid jury waiver and requires evidence defendant acknowledged waiver in open court)
State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333 (1996) (requires strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 or court lacks jurisdiction to try defendant without a jury)
State v. Tate, 59 Ohio St.2d 50 (1979) (silent acquiescence to bench trial does not constitute waiver of jury right)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Dallman, 70 Ohio St.3d 261 (1994) (reiterates jurisdictional consequence of failing to comply with jury‑waiver statute)