Case ID: ind_182/html/0686-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Erwin, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

White v. State of Indiana.
    [No. 22,702.
    Filed February 10, 1915.]
    1. Criminal Law. — Appeal.—Presenting Questions for Review.— Objections to Evidence. — Objections to the admission of testimony can be presented on appeal only through the medium of a motion for new trial, and not by independent assignment of error, p. 680.
    2. Appeal. — Questions Reviewable. — Ruling on Motion for New Trial. — Briefs.'—No question is presented on alleged error in overruling a motion for new trial, where the motion or its substance is not set out in appellant’s brief, p. 686.
    Prom Grant Circuit Court; H. J. Paulus, Judge.
    Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Elam White. Prom a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Harry E. Roberts, for appellant.
    
      Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, and Thomas H. Branaman, for the State.
   Erwin, C. J.

Action was commenced in the City Court of the City of Marion, Grant County, where appellant was charged with violating the liquor laws. Appellant was convicted in said court and appealed to the circuit court. Being again found guilty, he appealed to this court.

The errors relied upon for reversal of this cause are: (1) The court erred in overruling appellant’s objection to the testimony of John E. Johnson, a witness called by the State; (2) the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The first assignment of error relates to the admission of testimony. This is a matter which should be presented to this court through the medium of a motion for a new trial, and can not be made the subject of an independent assignment of error. Ward v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 524, 526, 101 N. E. 809; Siberry v. State (1896), 149 Ind. 684, 690, 39 N. E. 636, 47 N. E. 458. The second assignment of error relates to the overruling of the motion for a new trial, but appellant has failed to set out the motion in his brief.

The brief in this cause presents no question for review by this court. Ward v. State, supra, and cases cited; clause 5, Rule 22, Rules of Supreme Court. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 107 N. E. 674. Necessity for motion for new trial in order to obtain review on appeal of sufficiency of evidence in jury case, see 4 Ann. Cas. 304. See, also, under (1) 12 Cyc. 823; (2) 12 Cyc. 877; 2 Cyc. 1014.