¶1 concurring. While I am in almost full agreement with the majority opinion, I am a bit more favorably disposed toward Smith. It is conceivable to me, on this record, that Smith was unaware of, and not agreeable to, his trial counsel’s oral waiver of the jury. He was represented by the same counsel at trial, which makes his personal failure to then insist upon his right to a jury trial both -understandable and excusable. While the trial court, prosecutor, and witnesses have been unnecessarily inconvenienced, I am not convinced that Smith is the villain of the piece.
38 Ohio App. 3d 149
528 N.E.2d 591
State v. Smith
Decided July 28, 1987
Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1987-07-28
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1987-07-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2014
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →