Case ID: ind_175/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Monks, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Painter v. The State of Indiana.
    [No. 21,735.
    Piled May 23, 1911.]
    Criminal Law. — Appeal.—Transcript.—Certificate.—Bill of Exceptions. — Where the only error assigned on appeal, in a criminal case, is the overruling of .the motion for a new trial, and a consideration of the evidence is necessary in the decision thereon, such question cannot be determined where the transcript was certified by the cleric on July 1, and the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was signed by the judge on July 29.
    From the Criminal Court of Marion County (38,941); James A. Pritchard, Judge.
    Prosecution by The State of Indiana against Earl H. Painter. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Charles E. Averill, for appellant.
    
      James Bingham, Attorney-General, A. G. Gavins, E. M. White and William H. Thompson, for the State.
   Monks, J.

Appellant was convicted under an act approved March 8, 1909 (Acts 1909 p. 358), and his punishment assessed at a fine in the sum of $25.

The only error assigned calls in question the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The certificate of the clerk authenticating the transcript was dated July 1, 1910. What purports to be a bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not signed by the judge until July 29, 1910, twenty-eight days after the transcript was authenticated by the clerk.

It has uniformly been held that the certificate of the clerk certifies only to the correctness of all the papers filed, proceedings had and entries made prior to the date of said certificate, and cannot authenticate papers filed, proceedings had or entries made subsequently to that time. Nurrenbern v. Daniels (1904), 163 Ind. 301, and cases cited; Ewbank’s Manual p. 43. It is clear, therefore, that the evidence is not properly in the transcript, and cannot be considered.

As the error assigned depends for its determination upon the evidence, which is not in the transcript, there is nothing to support said assignment. The judgment is therefore affirmed.