Case Name: SILSBY et v. STATE; STATE ex SILSBY et v. WHITE, Judge
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-11-26
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 742
Docket Number: Nos. 21250 and 21255
Parties: SILSBY et v. STATE STATE ex SILSBY et v. WHITE, Judge
Judges: Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 742–742

Head Matter:
SILSBY et v. STATE STATE ex SILSBY et v. WHITE, Judge
Ohio Supreme Court
Nos. 21250 and 21255.
Decided Nov. 26, 1928.

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.