State v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 19 September 1956 |
| Citation | 301 P.2d 545,208 Or. 321 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Richard G. BAILEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Eugene C. Venn, Dist. Atty., and Bruce R. Avrit and F. Gordon Cottrell, Deputy Dist. Attys., Eugene, for respondent.
Tooze, Kerr, Hill, Dougherty & Tooze and Jack H. Cairns, Portland, and Rodman & Rodman, Eugene, for appellant.
This cause is again before us, this time upon objections presented by the state to two items in the cost bill filed by the successful appellant. The items are $496 and $222; they represent, respectively, the charges entered by the appellant for the printing of his opening brief and his reply brief. The former was 248 pages in length and the latter 111. The state does not challenge either charge in its entirety, although, if its challenges are completely sustained, each charge will be materially reduced. The state's objections to the two printing items are the following: (1) The headings, 'Legal Propositions,' 'Points and Authorities,' 'Argument,' and 'Reply to Proposition I,' etc., which precede the divisions into which the briefs were cast, were not printed in 12 point type (see Rule 15, Rules of the Supreme Court, which became Rule 26 under the revision of June 1, 1955) but in size 14. (2) The parts of the briefs which submitted the appellant's propositions and which constituted divisional headings were not spaced four lines to the inch (see the rule just cited) but 3.6 lines to the inch. (3) The appellant's briefs 'used a full-bodied type face which expanded the size' of the briefs 30 pages. (4) The appellant's opening brief did not present merely the assignment of error which we sustained but also 12 others. (5) The appellant's briefs at places repeated statements. (6) The argument in behalf of the 12th assignment of error employed 'redundancies and repetitions.' (7) Some assignments of error could have been consolidated.
The state's objections to the appellant's cost bill declare: 'While the body of appellant's opening and reply briefs are printed in 12 point type in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, appellant adopted and used a full-bodied type face which expanded the size of said briefs.' Thus, the state acknowledges that the parts of the briefs which submitted the appellant's argument, as distinguished from other parts which consisted of captions or headlines, employed the required size type.
The aforementioned rule of this court says: 'Type used shall be 11 or 12 point spaced four lines to inch; excerpts and citations six lines to inch.' A total of 72 lines of the opening and reply briefs, which constituted chapter and divisional headings, appear in 14 point type. Those 72 lines, therefore, exceeded the size permitted by our rules. The appellant's briefs were printed 24 lines to the page although an occasional page contains 25 lines. Accordingly, the 72 lines of 14 point type could be deemed the equivalent of three pages. When the challenged briefs were prepared, our rules entitled the successful party to enter in his cost bill a charge of $2 for each page of his brief. The state makes no claim that the appellant was not entitled to employ chapter headings. Those devices are often useful and enable the reader to grasp more readily the briefwriter's meaning. Therefore, the breach of our rules did not consist of the use of captions but of printing them in oversize type. We do not know how much extra space was consumed when those 72 lines were set in 14 point instead of 12 point, but are satisfied that it was negligible and unworthy of retaxation of costs.
As we have seen, the state claims that parts of the appellant's opening brief were not spaced four lines to the inch as required by the rule previously quoted but 'are spaced 3.6 lines to the inch.' The objections enumerated, one by one, parts of 21 pages which, it is claimed, infract the rule. Each of the 21 pages submitted a short proposition printed 3.6 lines to the inch. Each proposition was followed immediately by supporting argument which was cast four lines to the inch. The total material upon those 21 pages which was spaced 3.6 lines to the inch aggregates 107 lines. The objections declare that 'said lines occupy approximately five pages for the printing of which appellant claims $10 (5 pages at $2.00 per page).' A glance at the specified pages shows that in the printing of the 107 lines the pressman did not feel obliged to confine himself to four lines to the inch. The segregation of briefs into appropriate divisions, each of which is preceded by an apposite proposition which the succeeding argument seeks to maintain, is often a very useful way of presenting an appeal. The appellant's infraction, if any, of our rules did not consist of including in his brief the propositions upon which he depended, but in giving to each a little more space than the state believes was warranted. Unless a proposition is set apart slightly from the line above it and the one below, it may be engulfed in its surroundings and fail its purpose. Our rule of four lines to the inch was, obviously, intended to govern the printing of the argument and not of such aids to ready grasp as headings and short propositions. Court rules cannot prescribe in detail every phase of brief printing without drawing themselves out into cumbersome length and occasionally unduly hampering a capable briefwriter. Whenever wastefulness or prodigal indications appear, this court will act. Nothing of that kind is rendered apparent by this phase of the state's objections.
We now proceed to the contention of the state that the appellant's brief 'used a full-bodied type face' and thereby expanded its size 30 pages. Full-bodied type face increases slightly the horizontal space between words and thereby makes the page more readable. Very likely the state's contentions are correct that the length of a brief which employs that kind of material is expanded. However, this court has adopted no rule adverse to the use of full-bodied type face and, since we know of nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hubbard
...by completely foreclosing a legitimate defense attempt to cross-examine. State of Oregon v. Bailey, 208 Or. 321, 300 P.2d 975, 301 P.2d 545 (1956); see also State v. Ramos, supra; State v. Anthony, supra; McCormick on Evidence, § 40, 81 (2d ed. In this case, Brose and defendant are the only......
-
State v. Jutras
...220.] Compare, also, People v. Dillwood, 1895, 4 Cal.Unrep.Cas. 973, 39 P. 438, 439; State v. Bailey, 1956, 208 Or. 321, 300 P.2d 975, 301 P.2d 545; State v. Curcio, 1957, 23 N.J. 521, 129 A.2d We must conclude that the presiding Justice in the instant case erred in excluding the testimony ......
-
State v. Estlick
...(1900). This is particularly true in criminal cases involving accomplices. In State v. Bailey, 208 Or. 321, 337, 300 P.2d 975, 982, 301 P.2d 545 (1956), we said '* * * When the testimony of an accomplice is placed before a jury under a supposition that it may reflect the truth, the administ......
-
State v. Ponthier
...has bought his peace from the prosecution. See State v. Curcio, 23 N.J. 521, 129 A.2d 871; State v. Bailey, 208 Or. 321, 300 P.2d 975, 301 P.2d 545; State v. Roberson, 215 N.C. 784, 3 S.E.2d 277; Sandroff v. United States, 6 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 623. Nor can an instruction to the jury as to......