Case Name: Graham v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1969-06-20
Citations: 252 Ind. 367
Docket Number: No. 1268-S-202
Parties: Graham v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 252
Pages: 367–376

Head Matter:
Graham v. State of Indiana.
[No. 1268-S-202.
Filed June 20, 1969.
No petition for rehearing filed.]
William C. Erbecker, James Manaham, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Murray West, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hunter, J.
This is a criminal action instituted by the filing of an affidavit in the Madison Circuit Court charging appellant with the crime of Second Degree Burglary. Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of Not Guilty. The cause was tried by the Court without the intervention of a jury which resulted in finding the appellant guilty.
On July 23, 1968, the appellant filed his motion for a new trial. The only grounds for the new trial which have been urged on appeal are "(T)hat the finding of the court is contrary to law" and "that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence."
The appellant did not file a memorandum supporting these contentions with his motion for a new trial. Supreme Court Rule 1-14B provides:
"Whenever a new trial is requested on the ground or grounds 'that the verdict or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law,' the moving party shall file a memorandum stating specifically under such itemized cause wherein such evidence is insufficient or the verdict or decision is contrary to law. The party filing such motion shall be deemed to have waived any ground, not specified in the memorandum. (Adopted Jan. 13, 1967, effective March 1,1967.)"
This rule was adopted eighteen months prior to the filing of the motion for a new trial in the case at bar. It requires that a party present an alleged reversible error to the trial court with some degree of specificity prior to presenting it to this court on appeal. The rule was intended to allow a trial court some opportunity to review and correct its own errors and, thereby, in some instances avoid the extra travail and expense of an appeal.
The above specifications "were not properly presented to the Trial Court and will not be considered on appeal here." Lynch v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 54, 245 N. E. 2d 334.
Judgment affirmed.
Arterburn, Givan and Jackson, JJ., concur. DeBruler, C. J., dissents with opinion.