State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
166 N.E.3d 1096
Ohio2020Background
- Hayward Jones was charged with multiple drug-related offenses; trial was set for August 25, 2016.
- At an August 19, 2016 pretrial hearing Jones signed a written waiver electing to represent himself; no transcript of that hearing was originally in the appellate record.
- Trial proceeded in December 2016 with Jones appearing pro se; the trial court named standby counsel but standby counsel was not present during voir dire; Jones was convicted and sentenced.
- On appeal the Sixth District presumed the waiver was valid because no transcript of the August 19 hearing had been provided and therefore declined to disturb the trial court’s acceptance of the waiver; it resolved other issues and modified some convictions/sentences.
- Jones later obtained a transcript of the August 19, 2016 hearing (the court reporter transcribed a recording made available after earlier unavailability due to a ransomware incident) and moved in the Ohio Supreme Court to supplement the record with that transcript.
- The Ohio Supreme Court vacated its earlier denial of supplementation, granted the motion, supplemented the record with the August 19 transcript, and remanded to the Sixth District to decide, in the first instance, whether Jones knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The majority did not rule on the merits of the waiver or the structural-error question it had accepted for review; a multi-justice dissent argued the supplementation was improper and that App.R. 9(C) reconstruction rules should have been used instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State / Dissent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Ohio Supreme Court supplement the record under Sup.Ct.Prac.R.15.08 with a transcript not transmitted earlier? | Transcript is necessary because validity of the Faretta waiver is a predicate fact to the standby-counsel question accepted for review. | Supplementation is not authorized here; the transcript is not needed to decide the accepted question and App.R.9(C) reconstruction should have been used below. | Majority: vacated prior denial, granted supplementation and added transcript to the record. Dissent: would have denied supplementation. |
| Should the Sixth District be allowed to reconsider, with the supplemented record, whether Jones knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel? | Yes — the court of appeals must decide waiver validity now that the transcript is available; waiver validity is prerequisite to evaluating standby-counsel issues. | No — waiver validity was beyond scope of the issue accepted for review and Jones forfeited review by not reconstructing the record below. | Court remanded to the Sixth District to decide waiver validity using the supplemented record. |
| Does failure to provide standby counsel during voir dire constitute structural error (the proposition accepted for review)? | (Argued in merits briefing) Denial of standby counsel at voir dire is structural error per se. | State argued otherwise; the opinion did not reach the merits due to remand for waiver inquiry. | Not decided by the Supreme Court here; merits deferred pending appellate court’s reconsideration of waiver. |
| Did Jones forfeit appellate review of the missing-hearing issue by failing to reconstruct the record under App.R.9(C)? | His counsel reasonably believed the transcript was unavailable because the reporter was not present and recordings were inaccessible (ransomware); he later obtained the transcript. | He failed to use App.R.9(C) to reconstruct and thus forfeited the claim; longstanding precedent requires reconstruction. | Majority treated supplementation as discretionary and appropriate here; dissent insisted App.R.9(C) should control and Jones forfeited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognized constitutional right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Ketterer, 855 N.E.2d 48 (Ohio 2006) (refused to reverse when appellant failed to reconstruct missing bench-conference record)
- State v. Skatzes, 819 N.E.2d 215 (Ohio 2004) (rejection of claim where appellant failed to reconstruct missing voir dire charts under App.R.9)
- State v. Leonard, 818 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio 2004) (appellate counsel’s failure to invoke App.R.9(C) to reconstruct off-the-record conferences foreclosed relief)
- State v. Nields, 752 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 2001) (conferences not transcribed were ministerial; appellant’s failure to supplement the record warranted rejecting claim)
- In re B.E., 811 N.E.2d 76 (Ohio 2004) (failure to attempt reconstruction under App.R.9(C) waives errors based on missing record)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (the Supreme Court should not expand its docket searching for issues beyond those properly presented)