# State v. Strawther

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 7, 1978 · 56 Ohio St. 2d 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756462

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Strawther
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 7, 1978
- **Citations:** 56 Ohio St. 2d 298; 10 Ohio Op. 3d 420; 383 N.E.2d 900; 1978 Ohio LEXIS 694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Leach
- **Judges:** Brown, Celbbeezze, Cook, Eleventh, Herbert, Leach, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756462

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that use of term “compulsory process” sufficient to explain the right

## Opinion text

Leach, C. J.,
concurring. On the basis that the underlying purpose of Crina. R. 11 is to enable the trial court on the record, “to determine fully the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of his plea of guilty,” (see paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. Caudill, 48 Ohio St. 2d 342 ), I would modify the rule of law announced in paragraph three of the syllabus of Caudill to read:
“The requirements of Crim. R. 11(2) (C) are not satisfied merely by a written statement of the defendant or by representations of his counsel.”
Here that basic purpose and the reason for the rule has been fully complied with in the oral dialogue between the court and the defendant himself.
P. BrowN, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion of Leach, C. J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756462. Public record. Not legal advice.