Shriner v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Shriner v. State

47 N.E.2d 139, 221 Ind. 250, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 178

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1943

DocketNo. 27,778.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 N.E.2d 139 (Shriner 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

Shriner v. State, 47 N.E.2d 139, 221 Ind. 250, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 178 (Ind. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Shake, J.

The appellant was convicted on an affidavit charging him with failing to provide for his minor child. He has appealed assigning error on the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The specific errors relied upon are: The admission in evidence of *251 the marriage certificate of the appellant and the mother of the child; the refusal of the trial court to require the mother and child to submit to blood tests to determine its paternity; the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the appellant at the close of the State’s evidence; and the denial of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Neither the marriage certificate nor the motion to require blood tests is set out in the appellant’s brief. We do not search the record for grounds to reverse. Shaddy v. Yount (1940), 217 Ind. 26, 25 N. E. (2d) 450. The request for a directed verdict was waived when the appellant offered evidence in his own behalf. Indiana Insurance Co. v. Handlon (1940), 216 Ind. 442, 24 N. E. (2d) 1003. The affidavits offered in support of the claim of newly discovered evidence are not in the record, except as they appear in the motion for a new trial. This is not sufficient. Williams v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 94, 60 N. E. 942.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOTE.—Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 139.

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

Shake, J.

The appellant was convicted on an affidavit charging him with failing to provide for his minor child. He has appealed assigning error on the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The specific errors relied upon are: The admission in evidence of *251 the marriage certificate of the appellant and the mother of the child; the refusal of the trial court to require the mother and child to submit to blood tests to determine its paternity; the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the appellant at the close of the State’s evidence; and the denial of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Neither the marriage certificate nor the motion to require blood tests is set out in the appellant’s brief. We do not search the record for grounds to reverse. Shaddy v. Yount (1940), 217 Ind. 26, 25 N. E. (2d) 450. The request for a directed verdict was waived when the appellant offered evidence in his own behalf. Indiana Insurance Co. v. Handlon (1940), 216 Ind. 442, 24 N. E. (2d) 1003. The affidavits offered in support of the claim of newly discovered evidence are not in the record, except as they appear in the motion for a new trial. This is not sufficient. Williams v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 94, 60 N. E. 942.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOTE.—Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 139.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.E.2d 139, 221 Ind. 250, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shriner-v-state-ind-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack