been stolen.
On August 8, 1996, Mr. Cobler contacted the police regarding the hoist. On October 30, 1996, pursuant to an arrest warrant, the police arrested appellant at his place of employment. Appellant was charged with theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
After trial on the matter, the jury found that appellant had committed theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02, and appellant was sentenced to Community Control for three years, including forty hours of community service, drug evaluation, and random drug screens. Appellant was ordered to pay restitution of $847.50.
Appellant appeals the trial court's judgment and assigns the following fourteen assignments of error.
I. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTIONS FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL AND THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE ALL ELEMENTS OF THEFT AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, THUS DENYING DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
II. THE JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY OF A FELONY THEFT UNDER O.R.C., [sic] SECTION 2913.02(A)(1) OR (2) WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THUS DENYING DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. MOREOVER, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ALIBI AND/OR OTHER EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION EVIDENCE TO PERMIT THE JURY TO CONSIDER APPELLANT'S DEFENSES AND THUS, THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN SHE REFUSED THE APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY (MORE PROBABLY AT THE POINT WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE ENTERED THE JURY ROOM ALONE WHEN THE JURY WAS A HUNG JURY).
III. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO VERIFY THAT THE JURY POOL AND ENSUING JURY AS SELECTED, COMPOSED OF ALL CAUCASIAN JURORS, WAS LEGAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE INVOLVING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN DEFENDANT WITH SIMPLE MATHEMATICS REFLECTING THAT THE CHANCE OF RANDOM SELECTION WAS MINISCULE. FURTHERMORE, THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT QUESTIONING DURING VOIR DIRE THAT WERE PERTINENT AND APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY RELATED TO POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL BIAS, PREJUDICE AND/OR STEREOTYPING OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. ALL OF THIS CONSTITUTED DENIALS OF EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO GIVE APPELLANT'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO THE DEFECTS IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, AND TO THE DEFENSES OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO PROVIDE AS JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS RELATING TO THE THEFT ACCUSED IN THE INDICTMENT AND/OR REFUSED THE APPELLANT'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE CURED THAT PREJUDICIAL OMMISSION [sic].
V. THERE EXISTED IN THE TRIAL OF APPELLANT NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, AND THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (AS WELL AS A MOTION TO WITHDRAW) WERE GRANTED, THEN REVERSED WHEN THE PROSECUTOR MENTIONED THAT DOUBLE JEOPARDY MAY APPLY. FURTHER, DOUBLE JEOPARDY OPERATES TO PREVENT A RETRIAL AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY TREATING THIS