Coger v. State

163 N.E. 260, 200 Ind. 458, 1928 Ind. LEXIS 103
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1928
DocketNo. 25,555.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 N.E. 260 (Coger v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coger v. State, 163 N.E. 260, 200 Ind. 458, 1928 Ind. LEXIS 103 (Ind. 1928).

Opinion

Gemmill, J.

The appellant was prosecuted and found guilty of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to one John Pike, on June 14, 1927, in Marion County, State of Indiana. Judgment of fine and imprisonment was rendered on the finding.

On appeal, he hás assigned as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The causes for a new trial now relied upon are that the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and the finding of the court was contrary to law.

In his points and authorities, the appellant says that the mere whims of a child unsupported by any corroborating, direct or circumstantial evidence are not sufficient to convict defendant of crime. An examination of the evidence shows that the prosecuting witness was seventeen years old and worked in a garage. He further testified that he bought intoxicating liquor, which was alcohol, of the defendant. The cause was tried by the court. When the case was tried by the court without a jury, the question of the credibility of a witness was a matter to be determined by the trial court. The appellant testified that he did not make the sale of intoxicating liquor, with which he was charged. This court, as it has stated numerous times, will not weigh the evidence. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the criminal court.

*460 *459 Appellant attempts to claim error because police officers who had some knowledge of the transaction in *460 question did not testify. This matter was not mentioned in the motion for a new trial and same cannot be considered.

It does not appear that the finding of the trial court was contrary to law. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Winfield v. State
223 N.E.2d 576 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1967)
Hiner v. State
166 N.E. 20 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 N.E. 260, 200 Ind. 458, 1928 Ind. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coger-v-state-ind-1928.