History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ohio v. Chrisman
9 Ohio St. 2d 27
Ohio
1966
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Defendant presents the question whether the original defective affidavit was amendable, and whether counsel may agree to the amendment of such affidavit, waive the re-swearing and proceed to trial on schedule. He admits that “counsel should have objected # * * but did not do so at the time of trial through oversight, nor did he object to it upon review.”

The defendant, by his counsel, specifically consenting to the method of amendment and continuing his plea of not guilty and proceeding with the trial, waived objection to the want of verification. See State v. Glaros (1960), 170 Ohio St. 471; State v. Park (1962), 174 Ohio St. 81; and City of Cleveland v. Ely (1963), 174 Ohio St. 403.

The motion to certify the record is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Taut, O. J., ZimmermAN, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Herbert, Schheideb. and Browh, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Ohio v. Chrisman
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 28, 1966
Citation: 9 Ohio St. 2d 27
Docket Number: No. 40337
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.