Case Name: Fox v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1917-05-29
Citations: 186 Ind. 299
Docket Number: No. 23,206
Parties: Fox v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 186
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Fox v. State of Indiana.
[No. 23,206.
Filed May 29, 1917.]
Criminal Law. — Appeal.—Briefs.—Failure to Set Out Evidence. —Where, in an appeal in a criminal case, the specifications in a motion for a new trial require a review of the evidence, but in his statement of the record appellant fails to set out even the substance of the evidence, no question is presented for review, and the omission cannot be cured by supplying a statement of the evidence in the reply brief.
From Marion Criminal Court (46,081); James A. Collins, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Thomas Fox. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
R. M. Coleman, John W. Holtzman and Lewis A. Coleman, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, U. S. Lesh, Elmer E. Hastings, Edward M. White and John G. McCord, for the State.

Opinion:
Spencer, J.
Appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment which charges him with a violation of §8351 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p. 689. On appeal he assigns as error that the Marion Criminal Court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. This motion contains four grounds, each of which requires for its-consideration a review of the evidence on which the conviction is based, but in his statement of the record appellant has failed to set out even the substance of such evidence. Reference is made to parts thereof in his argument and an attempt has been made to supply the omitted statement in the reply brief, but this is not sufficient. Ogle v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 672, 100 N. E. 5; Supreme Tribe, etc. v. Kraft (1915), 183 Ind. 427, 109 N. E. 403; Waters v. Delagrange (1915), 183 Ind. 497, 500, 109 N. E. 758.
The failure properly to present any question for our consideration requires an affirmance of the judgment. We have taken occasion, however, to review the evidence as set forth in the record and conclude that a right result was reached in the trial court. Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 116 N. E. 295,