Pivak v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Pivak v. State

168 N.E. 717, 92 Ind. App. 263, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 445

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1929

DocketNo. 13,795.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.E. 717 (Pivak v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pivak v. State, 168 N.E. 717, 92 Ind. App. 263, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*264 Remy, J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Trial resulted in conviction.

Action of court in overruling motion for new trial is assigned as error.

Prior to commencement of the trial, the court overruled a motion of appellant to suppress certain evidence, and this ruling, as an “error of law occurring at the trial, ” was assigned as a reason for new trial, under cl. 7 of §282 Code of Criminal Procedure (§2325 Burns 1926). To have presented any question on the ruling, it should have been assigned as a reason for new trial, under cl. 1, §282, Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, which provides that a new trial may be granted for “ Irregularities in the proceedings of the court or jury, for any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial. ” Biddle v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 284, 157 N. E. 280; Bush v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 467, 128 N. E. 443; Chappelle v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 640, 149 N. E. 163.

Other alleged errors assigned as reasons for new trial, and referred to in appellant’s brief, are not properly saved and presented, and are of such character as to require no consideration in this opinion.

Affirmed.

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

*264 Remy, J.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Trial resulted in conviction.

Action of court in overruling motion for new trial is assigned as error.

Prior to commencement of the trial, the court overruled a motion of appellant to suppress certain evidence, and this ruling, as an “error of law occurring at the trial, ” was assigned as a reason for new trial, under cl. 7 of §282 Code of Criminal Procedure (§2325 Burns 1926). To have presented any question on the ruling, it should have been assigned as a reason for new trial, under cl. 1, §282, Code of Criminal Procedure, supra, which provides that a new trial may be granted for “ Irregularities in the proceedings of the court or jury, for any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial. ” Biddle v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 284, 157 N. E. 280; Bush v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 467, 128 N. E. 443; Chappelle v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 640, 149 N. E. 163.

Other alleged errors assigned as reasons for new trial, and referred to in appellant’s brief, are not properly saved and presented, and are of such character as to require no consideration in this opinion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.E. 717, 92 Ind. App. 263, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pivak-v-state-indctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack