Case ID: iowa_80/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Given, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. Myers et al.
    
    Appeal: record insufficient for questions raised. Where the transcript in a criminal case appealed to this court contains neither the testimony nor the instructions, questions upon the admission of testimony and the correctness of the instructions, and as to whether the verdict is supported by the evidence cannot be considered.
    
      Appeal from Polk District Court. — ITon. W. F. Conrad, Judge. •
    Filed, October 8, 1890.
    The defendants were jointly charged, by indictment, of the crime of nuisance, as defined in section 1543 of the Code. The defendant George Muggie was ¡separately tried, and a verdict of guilty, as charged, returned. Defendant Muggie’s motion for new trial being overruled, judgment was pronounced upon the verdict, from which he appeals.
    IF. TF Phillips, for appellant.
    
      John Y. Stone, Attorney General, for the State.
   Given, J.

— This case was submitted without argument, and upon a partial transcript which contains neither the testimony nor instructions. It appears from the transcript that a motion for new trial was sustained, •and the appeal is from conviction had upon the second trial. It is difficult to determine from the transcript which of the two motions for new trial was sustained, and which overruled. This would be obviated if the record entries were made to show before which judge the proceeding recorded was had. An examination of the dates of filing leads us to the conclusion that it was the motion filed October 22, 1889, that was overruled. This motion states, as grounds for new trial, errors in permitting the state to introduce certain testimony ; that the court erred in each instruction given ; that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and instructions, and is not supported by the evidence. As neither the evidence nor instructions are included in the transcript, we cannot determine whether the court erred in overruling this motion or not; and, as no other questions are presented in the transcript, the judgment of the district court is

AfHEMED.