Court Opinion

ID: 9715361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:01:22.683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.921701
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Arterburn, J.
The appellee has filed a petition for rehearing with counter-affidavits attached thereto by *221the prosecuting attorney in which he attempts at this time in this court to put in issue and to contradict certain allegations made in affidavits filed in the court below in support of the motion for a new trial and a motion for a continuance. Our opinion was based in part upon the uncontradicted affidavits filed in the court below. We pointed out in that opinion that the specifications and allegations in the motions stood uncontra-dicted by reason of the fact that no counter-affidavits were filed or testimony offered on the issue presented in the court below.
Appellee contends, however, that some of the undenied allegations were contained only in the motion for a continuance and not in the motion for a new trial, and that the verified statements and affidavits in a motion for a continuance did not have the standing when uncontradicted as those statements in a motion for a new trial under Rule 1-15 of this court. This rule provides for the filing of affidavits in support of a motion for a new trial and counter-affidavits thereto and then states, “such affidavits shall be considered as evidence without introduction thereof on the hearing on the motion, and shall be a part of the record without a bill of exceptions.” We need not go into the question attempted to be raised by the appellee herein for the reason that the affidavit in support of the motion for a new trial, which stands uncontradicted, contains the following language:
“Said petition [for a continuance] set forth all said facts and is filed herewith with the motion for a new trial and is made a part hereof.” (Our italics).
Appellee’s contention therefore that we have contravened a ruling precedent of this court in going outside the verified statement and affidavits in the motion for a new trial is without merit.
*222If the prosecuting attorney believed the statements made in the affidavit in support of the motion for a new trial to be untrue, he should have filed the counter-affidavit in the trial court below at that time — and obviously not in this court — after an appeal has been taken, and after a decision has been rendered. We can review only what actually took place in the trial court as shown by the record — not what we or the prosecuting attorney thinks afterwards should have been filed or done and for some reason unknown to us, was omitted or not done below in the trial court.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Achor, C. J., Emmert and Landis, JJ., concur.
Bobbitt, J., dissents.
Note. — Reported in 138 N. E. 2d 1.
Rehearing denied 139 N. E. 2d 438.