State v. Hurd, 2013 Ohio 3512

Julie Hurd was charged in Stow Municipal Court with first‑degree misdemeanor domestic violence after an alleged violent altercation with her teenage son. She pleaded not guilty.
She was released on bond with a no‑contact with children condition.
At bench trial Hurd appeared without counsel; the judge asked whether she was an attorney and whether she had chosen to represent herself. Hurd said she had not chosen to go pro se and explained she had been sick and confused and had not applied for a public defender.
The court proceeded citing inconvenience to others, explained basic trial procedure, and tried the case. The court found Hurd guilty and imposed a ten‑day jail term (suspended) and a $250 fine.
Hurd appealed, arguing (inter alia) the trial court violated her Sixth Amendment right by failing to (1) adequately inquire into why she lacked counsel and (2) obtain a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of counsel. The court of appeals found the waiver inquiry insufficient and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court violated the Sixth Amendment/Crim.R. 44(B) by failing to obtain a valid waiver of counsel before proceeding when defendant lacked counsel	State contended proceeding was permissible because defendant had time to seek counsel and the court explained trial procedure	Hurd argued she did not waive counsel, had not applied for a public defender due to sickness/confusion, and the court made no on‑the‑record inquiry into dangers/disadvantages of self‑representation	Court held waiver inquiry insufficient; defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily relinquish right to counsel; reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether the trial court sufficiently inquired into alleged victim’s competency to testify	State would argue competency was adequate based on record witnesses	Hurd argued competency inquiry was inadequate	Moot (not decided)
Whether conviction was against manifest weight of evidence	State argued evidence supported conviction	Hurd argued conviction was against the manifest weight	Moot (not decided)

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self‑representation only after a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver of counsel)
State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (1976) (trial court must inquire to ensure waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (2007) (waiver of counsel must be on the record; for offenses carrying confinement over six months a written waiver is required)
State v. Weiss, 92 Ohio App.3d 681 (1994) (trial court must inquire into dangers of self‑representation even when defendant appears to be delaying)