Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARSHALL, CJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SILSBY et v. STATE STATE ex SILSBY et v. WHITE, Judge
    Ohio Supreme Court
    Nos. 21250 and 21255.
    Decided Nov. 26, 1928.
    Error to Cuyahoga Appeals.
    Judgment Reversed.
    In Mandamus.
    Writ Denied.
   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.