Court Opinion

ID: 9535348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:18.34419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.694945
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Bobbitt, J.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.
I do not, however, want to be understood as concurring in the following statement in the majority opinion:
*264“Appellant asserts that he was denied rights under the Indiana Constitution, and for this reason we will consider his appeal on the merits.”
Lobaugh v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 548, 82 N. E. 2d 247, and Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, 51 N. E. 2d 848, cited by the majority in support of the above statement, are exceptions to the general rules and law of procedure. Are we to make them the rule, instead of the exception? If so, then the only requirement necessary to suspend any or all rules of orderly appellate procedure is for an appellant to assert, by letter or petition to this court, that he has been denied his rights under the Indiana Constitution.
In this case appellant is questioning the constitutionality of a statute. He is not charging the violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. If, merely because a constitutional question is raised, we are to set aside and abandon all rules of procedure, then no litigant who raises a constitutional question will, in any way, be bound by any of the legal and orderly rules of procedure which have so long been the guide posts in the orderly practice of law.