Title: Barton v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

240 Ind. 257 (1960)
163 N.E.2d 600
BARTON
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 29,752.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed January 20, 1960.
*258 Perry W. Cross, of Muncie, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General, Owen S. Boling, Assistant Attorney General, and Harriette Bailey Conn, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
ARTERBURN, C.J.
There is only one question presented in this appeal, all others being waived. The point presented is the first ground in appellant's motion for a new trial which is supported by affidavit and which reads in part as follows:
On the side of the State a counter-affidavit was filed which reads in part as follows:
It is argued that Rule 1-7 is applicable in this case and that "No error with respect to the giving of instructions shall be vailable as a cause for a new trial or on appeal, except upon the specific objections made as above required." (Our italics.) The requirements above are that prior to the giving of instructions, objections must be made specifically thereto. The rule apparently does not cover the situation when the alleged error occurs in the misreading of the instructions.
It nevertheless has always been a general principle of law that objections to any erroneous action of the court must be made promptly at the time such injurious action is alleged to have occurred and as soon as it comes to the knowledge of the injured party. The policy behind such a principle is that the court should have an opportunity promptly to correct any error and at the same time the party claiming error should not be permitted, after waiting to find the outcome of the case, and if adverse, then to contend for alleged prejudicial error. 1 I.L.E. Appeals, § 92, p. 587; 4 C.J.S. Appeal & Error, § 246, p. 764.
In this case, by affidavit, the defendant claims he "called the attention of the court to the misreading" of the instructions when the court finished reading it. The counter-affidavit does not categorically deny it. It should be further noted that the affidavit *260 of the appellant (defendant) does not state that at the time the alleged misreading was "called to the attention of the court" appellant (defendant) made any objection thereto or requested any action on the part of the court to correct the error. It is a well settled principle of law that a party complaining of error must "object" thereto and also request the court for action which will remedy the alleged error after it has occurred. A failure to make such request is a waiver of such action. Gamble v. Lewis (1949), 227 Ind. 455, 85 N.E.2d 629; Fowler v. Newsom (1909), 174 Ind. 104, 90 N.E. 9.
This Court has held that a statement by appellant's counsel in the trial court, "I don't see how that is competent" to a question by opposing counsel is not an objection sufficient to save any alleged error. City of Huntington v. Amiss (1906), 167 Ind. 375, 79 N.E. 199; Hormann et al. v. Hartmetz (1890), 128 Ind. 353, 27 N.E. 731; Podell v. Boger, etc., et al. (1957), 128 Ind. App. 116, 145 N.E.2d 730, Reh. den. 146 N.E.2d 428.
There is no showing that any actual objection was made or a request for the re-reading of the instructions.
It is not necessary for us to pass upon the method by which the alleged error herein is presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Bobbitt & Landis, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents.
Achor, J., not participating because of illness.
NOTE.  Reported in 163 N.E.2d 600.