Graham v. State
This text of 249 N.E.2d 25 (Graham 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.
Opinions
This is a criminal action instituted by the filing of an affidavit in the Madison Circuit Court charging appellant with the crime of Second Degree Burglary. Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of Not Guilty. The cause was tried by the Court without the intervention of a jury which resulted in finding the appellant guilty.
On July 23, 1968, the appellant filed his motion for a new trial. The only grounds for the new trial which have been [368]*368urged on appeal are “(T)hat the finding of the court is contrary to law” and “that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.”
The appellant did not file a memorandum supporting these contentions with his motion for a new trial. Supreme Court Rule 1-14B provides:
“Whenever a new trial is requested on the ground or grounds ‘that the verdict or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law,’ the moving party shall file a memorandum stating specifically under such itemized cause wherein such evidence is insufficient or the verdict or decision is contrary to law. The party filing such motion shall be deemed to have waived any ground, not specified in the memorandum. (Adopted Jan. 13, 1967, effective March 1,1967.)”
This rule was adopted eighteen months prior to the filing of the motion for a new trial in the case at bar. It requires that a party present an alleged reversible error to the trial court with some degree of specificity prior to presenting it to this court on appeal. The rule was intended to allow a trial court some opportunity to review and correct its own errors and, thereby, in some instances avoid the extra travail and expense of an appeal.
The above specifications “were not properly presented to the Trial Court and will not be considered on appeal here.” Lynch v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 54, 245 N. E. 2d 334.
Judgment affirmed.
Arterburn, Givan and Jackson, JJ., concur. DeBruler, C. J., dissents with opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
249 N.E.2d 25, 252 Ind. 367, 1969 Ind. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-state-ind-1969.