Ohio Loc. App. R. 60 app B
Introduction
Local Rule 7 sets out the procedural requirements for preparing an appellate brief in the Ninth District Court of Appeals. This Appendix supplements the Court's Local Rules by providing guidance about what the Court would prefer to read in briefs filed with the Court. Additional information regarding brief writing and oral argument is available on the Court's web site - www.ninth.courts.state.oh.us.
Local Rule 7(B)(4) - Statement of the Issues Presented
The statement of the issues should be a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief. To be most helpful to the reader, each issue should be a separate paragraph of less than 75 words. Ideally, each will be between 60 and 75 words. The first sentence of each issue should be a legal premise. This should be followed by facts demonstrating why the legal premise is applicable in this case. Finally, each should close with a question.
The word "whether" should not appear anywhere in the issue. Bryan Garner has called this "the deep issue" and listed the following principles for stating a good one:
(i) You must not try to cram everything into one sentence. Use separate sentences.
(ii) You must hold each issue to 75 or fewer words. (Otherwise, you'll lose focus and readers will lose patience.)
(iii) You must interweave facts into the issue--and keep them in chronological order.
(iv) The last sentence, which ends with a question mark, must flow directly from what precedes it. But remember that everything in the 75-word statement makes up the issue.
Bryan A. Garner, The Elements of Legal Style 184 (2002). The following is an example of the type of issue the Court wants to see:
The excited utterance exception allows a declarant's statement to be admitted if it is made under the stress of a startling event. Officer Johnson testified that he talked to Smith 30 minutes after Smith had made a 911 call reporting that he had been assaulted. Smith told Officer Johnson, "Bob hit me with a baseball bat." Was Officer Johnson's testimony repeating what Smith told him admissible as an excited utterance
Local Rule 7(B)(6) - Statement of the Facts
The appellant's brief must include a statement of the facts relevant to the assignments of error. The statement must include references to the record where the facts can be found. It should provide the reader with the facts relevant to understanding the assignment of error. It does not need to review every fact introduced in the earlier proceedings - only those facts relevant to the assignments of error presented in this appeal. It should address all material facts, including those that are favorable and unfavorable to each party's arguments.
The statement of facts should be completely accurate. If a brief asserts as a fact something that is not accurate or appears deliberately distorted, the writer risks confusing the reader and losing credibility. A complete statement of the material facts serves as a valuable "road map" for the reader. The following examples involve a motion to suppress evidence. The Court prefers the second example because it refers to the parties by names (not simply "appellant"), cites to the transcript of proceedings for each factual statement, and sets forth all material facts, including some that are unfavorable.
Example One - A Less Helpful Statement of the Facts
Officer Smith testified first. He said that he stopped a blue car on October 22, 2009, at 6:47 p.m., driven by Bill Douglas in which appellant was a passenger. The car was speeding and driving erratically. He said he asked them to get out of the car and Douglas passed field sobriety tests. Smith wrote a warning but did not give it to him because he said he tried to find a K-9 unit to come to the scene but, after a long wait, he was unable to locate one. He said that Douglas consented to a search and he found drugs under the driver seat. Lab tech Johnson testified next. She said she tested the drugs and they tested positive for cocaine. Appellant testified next in his own defense. He said he did not know the drugs were under the driver's seat. He said he only asked Douglas for a ride home after work and he did not know anything about the drugs in the car. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and appellant pled no contest. (Tr. at 125).
Example Two - A More Helpful Statement of the Facts
Appellant, Tom Jones, asked his co-worker, Bill Douglas, for a ride home after work. (Tr. at 100). Jones had never been in Douglas's car before this day. (Tr. at 100). On the ride home, Officer Smith stopped the car, a 1976 Cadillac El Dorado. (Tr. at 101). Smith asked Jones and Douglas to exit the vehicle. (Tr. at 101). Smith told Douglas he stopped the car because he was speeding and driving recklessly. (Tr. at 30).
Smith wrote a warning as he called for a K-9 unit. (Tr. at 36). Approximately 45 minutes after writing the warning (Tr. at 108), Douglas said he had nothing to hide and consented to a search of the vehicle. (Tr. at 33). Officer Smith discovered a package under the driver's seat. (Tr. at 35). Smith asked who the package belonged to, and both Jones and Douglas denied any knowledge of it. (Tr. at 36). Smith arrested both men. (Tr. at 38).
At the police station, police searched Jones and Douglas and took their personal items. (Tr. at 40). Officer Smith discovered a white powder on money that Jones handed him. The powdery substance tested positive for cocaine. (Tr. at 42).
Jones moved to suppress evidence. (Tr. at 3). Following a hearing, at which Jones challenged the legality of the detention, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. (Tr. at 125). Jones entered a no-contest plea, and the trial court sentenced him.
Ohio. Loc. App. R. 60 app B