2018 Ohio 4946
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Megan Ralston was indicted on multiple drug and falsification charges and pleaded guilty to an amended count of aggravated possession of drugs; other counts were nolled.
- At the plea colloquy the trial court told Ralston she was waiving her right to a trial but never explicitly used the word "jury" or expressly stated she was waiving a right to a jury trial.
- Ralston signed a written plea form that expressly stated she understood she was waiving her right to a jury trial.
- The State argued the written plea and the colloquy, taken together, showed Ralston knowingly waived her jury-trial right; Ralston argued the court failed to orally inform her of the right to a jury trial as required by Crim.R. 11(C).
- The appellate court concluded the oral colloquy lacked any reference to a jury and, under Ohio Supreme Court precedent requiring strict oral advisement of constitutional rights, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ralston) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court strictly complies with Crim.R. 11(C) when it tells a defendant she is waiving a "right to a trial" but never orally references a "jury" | The written plea plus the colloquy together show Ralston knowingly waived her jury-trial right; the omission is at most ambiguous and cured by the written waiver | The court failed to orally advise her of the constitutional right to a jury trial; relying solely on a written waiver is insufficient under Veney | Reversed: court must orally inform defendant of the right to a jury trial in a reasonably intelligible way; written waiver cannot solely cure omission |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional plea must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) for waiver of constitutional rights)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (trial court must orally inform defendant of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights; cannot rely exclusively on other sources)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (ambiguities in oral colloquy may be clarified by the record, but Veney limits exclusive reliance on outside sources)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary under federal and state constitutions)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (discusses consequences when trial court fails to orally advise defendant of constitutional rights)