Legal Opinion

State v. Barker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 24, 2011No. 2010-1448PublishedCited by 120 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.

{¶ 1} Today this court must decide whether a trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when its explanation of the constitutional right of compulsory process of witnesses is described to the defendant by the phrase “right to call -witnesses to speak on your behalf.” Further, we must decide whether an alleged ambiguity during an oral plea colloquy may be clarified by reference to other portions of the record, including the written plea. Because we hold that the language employed by the trial court while addressing the defendant was a reasonable explanation of the defendant’s right to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. VonnSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. State v. VeneyOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. State v. EngleOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. BallardOhio Supreme Court · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by120 opinions

  1. State v. Montgomery (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. ColeOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. State v. WillardOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  4. State v. EggersOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. PhippsOhio Court of Appeals · 2021

115 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API