Case Name: Epstein v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1920-05-25
Citations: 190 Ind. 693
Docket Number: No. 23,637
Parties: Epstein v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 190
Pages: 693–697

Head Matter:
Epstein v. State of Indiana.
[No. 23,637.
Filed May 25, 1920.
Rehearing denied October 8, 1920.]
1. Criminal Law. — Motion to Quash. — Briefs.—Sufficiency.—In the absence of a copy of the indictment or a statement of its substance, and a copy or the substance of the motion to quash, in the defendant’s brief, such brief presents no question as to the correctness of the court’s action in overruling the motion to quash, p. 694.
2. Criminal Law.— New Trial.— Briefs.— Sufficiency.— Where neither the motion for a new trial nor its substance is set out in the defendant’s brief, all questions sought to be presented thereby are waived, p. 695.
3. Criminal Law.— Motion in Arrest.— Briefs.— Sufficiency.— Where neither the indictment on which the judgment of conviction is founded, nor the motion in arrest, nor the substance of either, is set out in the defendant’s brief, no question is presented on such motion for review, p. 695.
4. Courts. — Inherent Powers. — Statutory Powers. — Buies.— Though §1373 Burns 1914, §1302 R. S. 1881, grants the Supreme Court power to frame rules, the court has such power without the statute, since the court is a constitutional body and receives its essential and inherent powers, including the power to make rules for its own direct government, from the Constitution, p. 696.
5. Appeal.— Briefs.— Buies of Court.— Judicial Power.— The provisions of Rule 22 governing the preparation of briefs was not made for the exclusive benefit of the appealing parties, but also to aid the Supreme Court in expediting business before it; and the rule, being within the court’s inherent power; has the force and effect of law, and the court has power to enforce it of its own motion in all proper cases, which power cannot be taken away by legislative action, p. 697.
From Marion Criminal Court (49,370) ; James A. Collins, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Samuel B. Epstein. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Jackiel W. Joseph, Henry Abrams and Albert C. Pierson, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and A. B. Cronk, for the state.

Opinion:
Willoughby, J.
— The appellant was convicted in the criminal court of Marion county, Indiana, on an indictment charging him with having obtained money by false pretenses, and from the judgment of. conviction he appeals and assigns as error: (1) That the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment. (2) That the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. (3) That the court erred in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment.
The appellant's brief does not contain a copy of the indictment, does not state in substance the contents thereof, and does not contain a copy of the motion to quash, nor the substance of such motion, although it says the motion was in writing. In the absence of any statement of the substance of said indictment or a copy thereof, and of the substance of the motion to quash or a copy of it, in appellant's brief, such brief presents no question as to the correctness of the court's action in overruling the motion to quash the indictment. Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382, 96 N. E. 125; Myers v. State (1909), 171 Ind. 673, 87 N. E. 141.
Appellant says the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, but such motion is not set out in said brief, nor the substance of it stated therein. When neither the motion for a new trial nor the substance thereof is set out in appellant's brief all questions sought to be presented thereby are waived. Tongret v. Carlin (1905), 165 Ind. 489, 79 N. E. 887; State, ex rel. v. Birden (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865; City of New Albany v. Kiefer (1919), 70 Ind. App. 289, 123 N. E. 361.
Appellant also fails to set out in his brief his motion in arrest of judgment or the substance of it. Where neither the indictment upon which the judgment is founded nor the motion in arrest is set out in appellant's brief, nor the substance of either of them stated therein, no question is presented to this court for decision. Myers v. State, supra.
No error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.