STATE OF OHIO v. BRUCE CAMERON WOODBRIDGE
C.A. No. 26911
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
March 31, 2014
2014-Ohio-1338
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 12 04 1000
Dated: March 31, 2014
HENSAL, Judge.
{1} Bruce Woodbridge appeals his convictions for domestic violence and resisting arrest in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court reverses.
I.
{2} In April 2012, the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Woodbridge for domestic violence and resisting arrest. A week before trial, Mr. Woodbridge filed a “Waiver of Jury,” in which he requested a bench trial. On the day of trial, Mr. Woodbridge executed a “Jury Waiver” that provided: “I do hereby knowingly and voluntarily waive my right to have my case tried by a jury of my peers and consent to my case being tried by the Court.” The same document contained a “Certification” by Mr. Woodbridge‘s lawyer, stating that the lawyer had explained to Mr. Woodbridge that he has a right to have his case heard by a jury, and that Mr. Woodbridge had voluntarily consented to have his case tried by the court.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE AND PLAIN ERROR AND WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A BENCH TRIAL BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF
R.C. 2945.05 WERE NOT STRICTLY FOLLOWED.
{4} Mr. Woodbridge argues that his jury trial waiver was invalid because it did not comply with
{5}
I * * *, defendant in the above cause, hereby voluntarily waive and relinquish my right to a trial by jury, and elect to be tried by a Judge of the Court in which the said cause may be pending. I fully understand that under the laws of this state, I have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.
The Ohio Supreme has held that, “[a]bsent strict compliance with the requirements of
{6} Although “Ohio courts have declined to find that the language of the waiver must be a verbatim recitation of
{7} While the content of Mr. Woodbridge‘s written waiver is substantially similar to the first sentence of the statute‘s suggested language, there is nothing in the waiver that conforms with the second sentence. Specifically, there is nothing in the written waiver that indicates that Mr. Woodbridge fully understands that he has a constitutional right to a jury trial. While the waiver does claim that Mr. Woodbridge is acting “knowingly,” that mere assertion is an insufficient substitution for the requirement under
{8} Under the plain language of
{9} Upon review of the record, we conclude that, because Mr. Woodbridge did not validly waive his right to a jury trial, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial. Mr. Woodbridge‘s first assignment of error is sustained. In light of our disposition of his first assignment of error, his remaining assignments of error are moot, and they are overruled on that basis.
III.
{10} The trial court incorrectly determined that Mr. Woodbridge‘s jury trial waiver was valid under
{11} Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Costs taxed to Appellee.
JENNIFER HENSAL
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, P. J.
BELFANCE, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
NEIL P. AGARWAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.