State v. Fowler

• Decision Date: 27 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 37490,37490
• Parties: , 22 O.O.2d 416 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FOWLER, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 362

174 Ohio St. 362

189 N.E.2d 133, 22 O.O.2d 416

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FOWLER, Appellant.

No. 37490.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 27, 1963.

David H. Bailie, Dayton, for appellant.

William S. Hoopes, Marysville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The first question raised in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for discharge filed under the provisions of Section 2937.21, Revised Code.

This section was enacted as a part of Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 73 by the One Hundred and Third General Assembly, 'relative to making practice and procedure in the trial of criminal offenses uniform in courts inferior to the court of common pleas.' Thus, since the present proceeding was begun in the Court of Common Pleas, Section 2937.21 is not applicable thereto.

The second question in this appeal arises from the refusal of the trial court to provide appellant with a bill of particulars upon a motion timely made.

The right of an accused to be informed of the exact nature of the offense with which he is charged is inherent in our laws and applies equally to cases where one is charged with a misdemeanor or a felony; the basic right is the same in either instance and an accused must be explicitly informed of the offense with which he is charged so that he has an adequate opportunity to prepare his defense.

This right arises under Section 10 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which provides in part as follows:

'In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof * * *.'

To implement this right and to provide for the execution thereof, the General Assembly provided in Section 2941.07, Revised Code, as follows:

'The prosecuting attorney, if seasonably requested by the defendant, or upon order of the court, shall furnish a bill of particulars setting up specifically the nature of the offense charged.'

The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform an accused of the exact nature of the charges against him so that he can prepare his defense thereto.

The right to a bill of particulars provided for in this section is not a matter of discretion with the court but is mandatory if the charge laid is vague or indefinite. State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 473, 76 N.E.2d 355, 5 A.L.R.2d 425.

Having determined that it is mandatory for the trial court to furnish a bill of particulars if the charge laid is so indefinite that the accused cannot prepare his defense thereto, we come now to a consideration of the affidavit filed in the Court of Common Pleas in the present case.

The charging part of this affidavit reads as follows:

'* * * one James Arthur Fowler, Jr., 1126 N. Main St., Dayton, Ohio, did operate a certain motor vehicle displaying Ohio license 976 NB over and upon South Main Street in the village of Marysville at about the hour of 10:00 p. m. while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic drugs or opiates in violation of Sec. 4511.19 of the Ohio Revised Code * * *.'

This charge is substantially in the words of the statute. Although under the provisions of Section 2941.05, Revised Code, a charge laid in the terms of the statute is sufficient to charge the crime, this section is not dispositive of the issue before us. The fact that the use of the terms of the statute is sufficient to charge an offense does not negate the right of the accused to a bill of particulars if...