State v. Lomax

114 Ohio St. 3d 350 (Ohio 2007) · Supreme Court of Ohio · September 5, 2007

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a waiver of the right to a jury trial under R.C. 2945.05 must be written, signed, filed, made part of the record, and made in open court. The open-court requirement is satisfied only when the record shows that the defendant, while in court and in the presence of counsel if any, acknowledged the waiver to the trial court; a written waiver and a passing reference by the court were insufficient in this case.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Lanzinger, J.; Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; O'Donnell, J.; Cupp, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
September 5, 2007
Procedural posture
The State of Ohio brought a discretionary appeal from the reversal of Lomax's murder conviction by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether Lomax's written jury waiver satisfied the statutory open-court requirement.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo the legal sufficiency and statutory compliance of the jury waiver.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio; precedential.
Parties
State of Ohio v. Keith Lomax
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduresixth amendmentstatutory interpretationconstitutional law

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawjury-trial waiverstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. What requirements must a defendant's waiver of the right to trial by jury satisfy under R.C. 2945.05?
  2. Does R.C. 2945.05 require a trial court to conduct an extended colloquy with the defendant before accepting a jury waiver?
  3. Did Lomax's written jury waiver satisfy the statutory requirement that the waiver be made in open court?

Holdings

  1. A valid jury waiver under R.C. 2945.05 must be in writing, signed by the defendant, filed, made part of the record, and made in open court after arraignment and an opportunity to consult with counsel.
  2. To satisfy R.C. 2945.05's open-court requirement, the record must contain some evidence that the defendant, while in the courtroom and in the presence of counsel if any, acknowledged the jury waiver to the trial court.
  3. Lomax's jury waiver was invalid because the record contained no evidence that he acknowledged the waiver to the trial court in open court and in the presence of counsel.

Key quotations

There must be, however, some evidence in the record of the proceedings that the defendant acknowledged the waiver to the trial court while in the presence of counsel, if any. (¶ 42)
To satisfy the “in open court” requirement in R.C. 2945.05, there must be some evidence in the record that the defendant while in the courtroom and in the presence of counsel, if any, acknowledged the jury waiver to the trial court. (¶ 49)

Factual background

Lomax was indicted for the murder of Robert Christian after a confrontation at a family birthday party. Lomax admitted stabbing Christian but claimed self-defense, asserting that Christian had placed him in a chokehold. Lomax signed a written jury waiver that was filed and made part of the record, but the trial transcript contained only a passing reference by the court to an anticipated jury waiver and no acknowledgment by Lomax in open court.

Procedural history

Lomax was indicted for murder, waived a jury trial in writing, and was convicted after a bench trial. The trial court sentenced him to fifteen years to life. The Court of Appeals for Hamilton County reversed, concluding that the trial court's passing reference to a jury waiver did not comply with R.C. 2945.05. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the State's discretionary appeal and affirmed the appellate judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…