Silsby v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Silsby v. State

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 742

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1928

DocketNos. 21250 and 21255

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 742 (Silsby v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Silsby v. State, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 742 (Ohio 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

MARSHALL, CJ.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 S3) The requirements of section 13694 General Code impose a mandatory duty upon a trial judge to ask an accused person whether he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against him.

Where that duty has not been discharged by the court and error is prosecuted therefrom anda court of review finds no other error in the record, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of resentence.

Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARSHALL, CJ.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 S3) The requirements of section 13694 General Code impose a mandatory duty upon a trial judge to ask an accused person whether he has anything to say why judgment should not be pronounced against him.

Where that duty has not been discharged by the court and error is prosecuted therefrom anda court of review finds no other error in the record, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of resentence.

Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silsby-v-state-ohio-1928.