State v. Price

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 3016

Syllabus

Crim.R. 11 constitutional protections right against compulsory self-incrimination inconsistent verdicts. Appellant appealed in two cases. In the first case, the State concedes that the trial court inadvertently failed to advise appellant of his right against compulsory self-incrimination during his plea colloquy in violation of Crim.R. 11. Judgment reversed. In the second case, although appellant was convicted of charges that his codefendant was acquitted of, the verdicts were not inconsistent. There were two victims and appellant's actions were against one victim while his codefendants actions were against another victim. Even if the verdicts were inconsistent this court has held that inconsistent verdicts between codefendants is not a sufficient reason for reversing a conviction.