Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

Criminal Rule 22 -- Recording of Proceedings
State v. Grewell (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 4 -- Syllabus: "Crim. R. 22 applies to grand jury proceedings. Pursuant to Crim. R. 22 grand jury proceedings in felony cases must be recorded."
State v. Lawson (1992), 64 Ohio St. 3d 336, 345 -- Failure to record grand jury testimony harmless error where defendant has failed to demonstrate a particularized need for disclosure.
State v. Said (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 473 -- Syllabus: "A hearing to determine the competency of a potential child witness pursuant to Evid. R. 601 must be recorded pursuant to Crim. R. 22."
State v. Dyer (1996), 117 Ohio App. 3d 92 -- Assertion that the defendant did not want a lawyer in an unsigned pro se motion, and on the envelope it was mailed in, plus prosecutor's affidavit concerning waiver are not enough to excuse the court's duty under Criminal Rules 44 and 22 to secure a proper waiver of the right to counsel.
State v. Haag (1976), 49 Ohio App. 3d 268 -- Applying Crim. R. 22, if the defendant was not represented by counsel, and the record fails to affirmatively demonstrate that he had the opportunity to obtain counsel or waived his right to counsel, any resulting sentence of incarceration must be vacated.
Garfield Heights v. Brewer (1984), 17 Ohio App. 3d 216 -- A written waiver of counsel is no substitute for a recorded, oral waiver of counsel in open court.
State v. Gaetano (1974), 44 Ohio App. 2d 233 -- Except for the waiver of counsel, proceedings in a petty offense case need not be recorded unless requested by a party.
State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App. 2d 129 -- Headnote 3: "The use of a form or stamped entry reciting that all rights have been fully explained is not a substitute for a proper record of proceedings before a judge under Crim. R. 11 or 22."
State v. Ferguson (1979), 64 Ohio App. 2d 165 -- Dismissal of indictment as a sanction for preliminary hearing transcript being "unavailable" was premature without consideration of alternative remedies.
State, ex rel. Hurt, v. Kistler (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 307 -- Even in a capital case, a court may elect to use electronic recording of proceedings in lieu of a stenographer.
State v. Skaggs (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 162 -- Syllabus: "The failure of a recording device to completely reproduce all of the proceedings of a trial in a petty offense case is not prejudicial per se." Compare Warrensville Heights v. Blackburn (1974), 2 Ohio Ops. 3d 124.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.