Coleman, Ransom v. State

175 N.E.2d 25, 241 Ind. 663, 1961 Ind. LEXIS 184
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 26, 1961
Docket29,886
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 175 N.E.2d 25 (Coleman, Ransom 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
Coleman, Ransom v. State, 175 N.E.2d 25, 241 Ind. 663, 1961 Ind. LEXIS 184 (Ind. 1961).

Opinion

Jackson, J.

Appellants were charged by affidavit with the crime of burglary in the second degree; trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty and defendants being sentenced to a term of not less than two nor more than five years’ imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison and disfranchisement for a period of five years.

Judgment was entered on the verdict and the appellants filed their motion for a new trial. Such motion *664 for new trial was denied and this appeal perfected. The assignment of errors is that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for new trial.

Appellants’ brief contains neither a recital of nor the substance of the motion for a new trial, consequently no question concerning such motion can be considered on appeal. State ex rel. Penrod v. French (1944), 222 Ind. 145, 51 N. E. 2d 858; Board of Med. Regist. and Exam., etc. v. Bowman (1958), 238 Ind. 532, 150 N. E. 2d 883; Snow v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 234, 125 N. E. 2d 802; F. W. & H. Ind. Tr. & App. Pract., ch. 53, §2677, Comment 7 (c), p. 305.

The state of the record before us is such that in order to thoroughly consider and determine the issue at bar, it would necessitate that we not only ignore the provisions of Rule 2-17 (d) but search the record to determine whether or not the trial court had committed error in denying appellants motion for a new trial.

This court, by a long line of decisions, has held that it will not search the record to reverse a judgment of the trial court.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Landis, C. J., Bobbitt, Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 175 N. E. 2d 25.

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

Related

Stevenson v. State
318 N.E.2d 573 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1974)
Douglas v. State
259 N.E.2d 691 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1970)
General Insurance Co. of America v. Hutchison
239 N.E.2d 596 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1968)
Michaels v. Johnson
223 N.E.2d 585 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1967)
Loper v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY
211 N.E.2d 797 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1965)
Hoosier Fence Co., Inc. v. Cohen
210 N.E.2d 54 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1965)
Israel v. Logansport Aerie No. 323
199 N.E.2d 730 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 N.E.2d 25, 241 Ind. 663, 1961 Ind. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-ransom-v-state-ind-1961.