Summary
In Jennings, the Court of Appeals for Licking County sustained one assignment of error and because of this failed to address three others, calling them "irrelevant."
Summary of this case from Criss v. Springfield TownshipOpinion
No. 81-743
Decided February 24, 1982.
Criminal law — Appeal to Court of Appeals — Noncompliance of court with App. R. 12(A), when.
APPEAL and CROSS APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County.
In July 1980, Anitria K. Jennings, defendant-appellee herein, was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury on one count of complicity in the commission of forgery and one count of escape. She was represented by counsel at the arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. The defendant filed a request for a bill of particulars which the state subsequently provided. Then she filed a motion to dismiss count No. 1 of the indictment alleging that it did not state a criminal offense. The motion was overruled and the case proceeded to a trial by jury on September 19, 1980. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty as to count No. 1, conspiracy, and a mistrial was declared as to count No. 2, escape, when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting five assignments of error. The court sustained the first assignment concerning the sufficiency of the indictment, found that the second assignment was not well taken and stated that assignments of error number 3, 4 and 5 were irrelevant because of the ruling on assignment of error No. 1.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion and cross-motion for leave to appeal.
Mr. David E. Lighttiser, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Ray Luther, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Mr. J. Gerard Swank, for appellee and cross-appellant.
We find that the Court of Appeals failed to comply with App. R. 12(A) when it did not rule on all of the assignments of error before it.
App. R. 12(A) provides in pertinent part:
"* * * All errors assigned and briefed [in the Court of Appeals] shall be passed upon by the court in writing, stating the reasons for the court's decision as to each such error."
We addressed the application of the rule in Lumbermen's Alliance v. American Excelsior Corp. (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 37.
The syllabus states that:
"All errors assigned and briefed in the Court of Appeals shall be passed upon by the Court of Appeals in writing, stating the reasons for the court's decision. * * *" (Citation omitted.)
Thus, it is clear that the Court of Appeals should rule on all errors assigned. Furthermore, the court should give the reasons for its decision on each assignment of error. Reasons for a decision are necessary — otherwise all parties concerned must speculate on the obstacles, legal or other, which need be overcome in an appeal to this court. Id. at page 40.
In this case, the Court of Appeals did not rule on all errors assigned contrary to the mandate of App. R. 12(A). Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for compliance with the provisions of App. R. 12(A), that all errors assigned and briefed be passed upon in writing, stating the reasons for the court's decision.
We need not at this time pass upon the state's appeal relating to the sufficiency of the indictment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, PATTON, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.
PATTON, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for HOLMES, J.