Legal Opinion

Ohio v. Chrisman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1966No. 40337PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per 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;…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. CulpOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. State v. WalkerOhio Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. State v. CulpOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Village of Pepper Pike v. LaMaidaShaker Heights Municipal Court · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API