Title: Fultz v. State
Citation: 233 N.E.2d 243, 250 Ind. 43
Docket Number: 30,829
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 1968

250 Ind. 43 (1968)
233 N.E.2d 243
FULTZ
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 30,829.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed January 30, 1968.
Rehearing denied March 20, 1968.
*44 William D. Ruckelshaus, of Indianapolis, and Charles V. Livengood, of Richmond, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, Donald R. Ewers, Assistant Attorney General, and Murray West, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
JACKSON, J.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of assault and battery with intent to kill. The affidavit, omitting heading, formal parts and signatures thereto, reads as follows, to-wit:
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the affidavit. The cause was submitted on the affidavit and appellant's plea of not guilty. Trial was to the court without the intervention of a jury resulting in a finding of guilty as charged in the affidavit, and on such finding the appellant was sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for a period of not less than two (2) years nor more than fourteen (14) years. On February 25, 1965, appellant filed his motion for new trial; such motion contained nineteen grounds, none of which are set out for reason hereinafter stated. The appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled May 25, 1965.
On October 1, 1965, appellant filed his supplemental motion for a new trial, which omitting heading, formal parts and signatures thereto, reads as follows, to-wit:
On October 1, 1965, the trial court overruled appellant's supplemental motion for a new trial.
Thereafter appellant filed his supplemental assignment of errors which reads as follows, to-wit:
*48 The evidence most favorable to the State adduced in this cause may be briefly summarized as follows. On the afternoon of July 20, 1964, one James Brockman was leaving his place of employment and driving on a dirt road when the appellant in his automobile pulled in front of the prosecuting witness Brockman and stopped his car forcing Brockman to bring his car to a halt. The appellant got out of his car, walked back to the left side of the car in which Brockman was sitting, cursed him and said "Do you want it in there or do you want it out here?" At that time the appellant had a gun sticking in the waist of his pants. He pulled open the left front door, pulled the gun from his waist and pointed it at Brockman. In the scuffle Brockman was shot in the head by the gun that was in the hand of the appellant Fultz.
Delbert Sly testified that he saw the appellant reach down in his belt and pull out a gun, go over and grab Mr. Brockman's car door and open it. Sly then heard the report of the gun, and when he approached Brockman's car he saw Brockman lying in it with blood in the car. Thereafter one Merle Rogers testified that the appellant made the following statement to him "I just shot Jim Brockman." He further testified that the appellant stated "I did not mean to shoot him."
The sole question in this appeal is raised in the supplemental assignment of errors. The appellant's counsel in argument before this court waived all other issues and has not argued any of the other assignments of error embodied in the motion for new trial; therefore, the only question we are called upon to decide in the case at bar is whether or not the court abused its discretion in overruling the appellant's supplemental motion for a new trial.
The granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Farley v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 445, 185 N.E.2d 414; Key v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 172, 132 N.E.2d 143.
*49 A motion for a new trial disclosing newly discovered evidence should be received with great caution, and the alleged evidence should be carefully scrutinized. Ward v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 531, 135 N.E.2d 509; Anderson v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 143, 161 N.E. 625.
In the Anderson case this Court held that the granting of the motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence rests in the discretion of the trial court, and stated further that:
In Rector v. State (1934), 211 Ind. 483, 190 N.E. 172, 7 N.E.2d 794, this Court provided a test which the trial court should apply to determine the materiality of newly discovered evidence, and that test is whether or not such evidence probably would produce a different result upon a second trial.
It appears that the affidavit accompanying appellant's supplemental motion for a new trial is deficient in that it fails to show the gun allegedly sold to Jim Brockman by the affiant is the same gun used in the assault. On the basis of the affidavit filed we are unable to say the court committed error or abused its discretion in denying the supplemental motion.
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and the judgment is affirmed.
Lewis, C.J. Arterburn, Hunter and Mote, JJ. Concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 233 N.E.2d 243.