This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.

CMLawLibraryBlog

The CM Law Library Blog seeks to inform the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law community about key legal education, research, practice, and law library news, with a particular focus on Cuyahoga County and Ohio as well as faculty research interests.

« | »

When Substantial Compliance is Not Good Enough

Jan Novak, Associate Director jan.novak@law.csuohio.edu | October 10, 2008 - 07:47

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday that failure to explicitly enumerate the five constitutional rights waived by a defendant when offering a guilty plea renders the plea invalid. In State v. Veney, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-5200 the Court held that while substantial compliance is satisfactory for non-constitutional notifications, Ohio Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(c) “ requires that the defendant be advised of the right to a jury trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, and the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” At issue was the failure of the trial court to specifically advise the defendant of the state’s burden of proof.

Ohio and Local:: Comment (1) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (0) AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comment Icon video of oral argument [Reply]

Schuyler Cook | 10/10/2008, 10:50

You may want to add the video of the oral argument for this decision:

http://www.ollserver.state.oh.us/ramgen/court/2008/2007-0656.rm

Add comment
authimage
 
Accessible and Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS
Powered by pLog - Design by BalearWeb