CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED THEFT OF AN ENGINE HOIST THAT WAS OBTAINED LEGALLY UNDER A LEASE AGREEMENT AS A CONTRACT AND/OR NEGLIGENCE CASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTOR'S AND TRIAL JUDGE'S ASSERTIONS TO THE CONTRARY.
VII. THE PROSECUTION AND TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT TREATED THE THEFT ACCUSATION AGAINST APPELLANT AS A CIVIL MATTER WITH CIVIL STANDARDS AND DENIED APPELLANT FROM SUBMITTING EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND IGNORED CITED LAW (AS WELL AS JURY INSTRUCTIONS) THAT WOULD INDICATE OR THAT WOULD REFLECT THAT THE LEASE CONTRACT WAS VOID IN PART AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, WHEN AT THE SAME TIME TREATED THIS CASE AS A CONTRACT CASE AND NEGLIGENCE CASE AND CONTRAVENED O.R.C., SECTION 1351.03(B) [sic].
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED AND REFUSED THE JURY, WHICH WAS A HUNG JURY, SIX TO SIX, ADDITIONAL TIME TO DELIBERATE THE FOLLOWING WEEK, THEREBY DENYING APPELLANT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION. MOREOVER, THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR, INDUCED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND NOT APPELLANT, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JURY ROOM ALONE UNDER THE PRETEXT OF DEFINING SOME ELEMENT WORD AS THE PLAIN MEANING, AND SHORTLLY [sic] THEREAFTER, THE HUNG JURY RETURNED WITH A UNANIMOUS GUILTY VERDICT, THEREBY CONSTITUTING PLAIN ERROR AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
IX. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED PROSECUTION'S [sic] ORAL MOTION IN LIMINE AND ORAL MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF TRENT TURNER FROM THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OR VOIR DIRE. THESE DENIALS WERE PREJUDICIAL TO APPELLANT AND DENIED HIM EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
X. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO CHARACTERIZE DETECTIVE ADKINS AS AN ADVERSE WITNESS SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY APPELLANT, AND FURTHER PERMITTED THE PROSECUTION TO CONDUCT DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE ADKINS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
XI. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED ON VARIOUS EVIDENTIARY RULINGS.
XII. THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDICIALLY ERRED OR PLAINLY ERRED AT THE SENTENCING, AND THE SENTENCE OF APPELLANT WAS THEREFORE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
XIII. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO RECEIVE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. MOREOVER, THE TRIAL COURT IN CONJUNCTIONS WITH THE PROSECUTION, CONTINUALLY DEBASED, HUMILIATED AND INTERRUPTED AND/OR DENIED OBJECTIONS TO BE RECORDED AND PROFFERS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
XIV. THERE WAS NO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE HUNG JURY, SIX TO SIX, AND THIS HUNG JURY WAS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF APPELLANT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO HIS DEFENSES, AND PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE REVERSIBLE ERRORS MADE THE [sic] TRIAL JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR.
First, we note that in his brief appellant presented arguments only as to assignments of error one, two, three, four, five, and eight within the fifty-page limit as set forth in Loc.App.R. 7(B).