Court Opinion

ID: 9744338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:06.353475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.655715
License: Public Domain

COURT’S RULING ON APPELANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR REHEARING
Lowdermilk, J.
Appellant has filed his motion to dismiss appellee’s petition for rehearing, together with a memorandum in support thereof wherein, among other things, appellant charges the petition for rehearing does not contain a concise statement of the reasons why it is thought this court’s decision was erroneous as. required by Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11.
We are acquainted with the case of Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N.E.2d 823, wherein our Supreme Court discussed and construed the old rule, 2-22, which is the same as the present Rule AP. 11. We must agree with appellant that the petition for rehearing does not conform exactly to the rule. It appears to be a combination of a petition and memorandum and argument in support thereof.
While the petition may not be a model for the guidance of other lawyers who may prepare petitions for rehearing we are loath to dismiss the petition. This court has in the past been very liberal with the defendant in State cases where the State has attempted to deprive the defendant from his or her day in court and we are of the opinion that in a sense of fairness it behooves us to give the State the same fair treatment that *36we accord those unfortunate people charged with crime. Eg., Lipps v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 141, 258 N.E.2d 622.
We now overrule defendant-appellant’s motion to dsmiss appellee’s petition for rehearing.
And the court, having seen and considered said petition for rehearing, now denies the same.
Robertson, C.J. and Lybrook, J. concur.
Note. — Reported at 349 N.E.2d 285.