Smith v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Smith v. State

56 N.E. 19, 154 Ind. 107, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 17

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1900

DocketNo. 19,159

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 N.E. 19 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 56 N.E. 19, 154 Ind. 107, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 17 (Ind. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Hadley, C. J.

Appellant was convicted, under §2116 Burns 1894, §2029 R. S. 1881 an<l Horner 1897, of aiding a prisoner to escape.

The errors assigned challenge (1) the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the affidavit and information, and (2) the overruling of his motion for a new trial. No infirmity in the affidavit and information is pointed out, and the first assignment is therefore waived under the often repeated rule of this court. Dunn v. Dunn, 149 Ind. 424.

As a cause for a new trial it is urged that the court erred in giving, of its own motion, instruction number three. The instructions are not in the record. We find copied into the record, but not in a bill of exceptions, what purports to he a set of instructions; but there appears no prefatory recitals of the clerk, no exceptions, no signature of court or attorney, nor any other evidence that they were the instructions given to the jury; besides, it is firmly settled by a long line of decisions that instructions in a criminal case can only be brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. Bealer v. State, 150 Ind. 390, and cases'cited.

The only other question argued is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence is in sharp conflict. We have no power to weigh it, and hence can not disturb the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hadley, C. J.

Appellant was convicted, under §2116 Burns 1894, §2029 R. S. 1881 an<l Horner 1897, of aiding a prisoner to escape.

The errors assigned challenge (1) the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the affidavit and information, and (2) the overruling of his motion for a new trial. No infirmity in the affidavit and information is pointed out, and the first assignment is therefore waived under the often repeated rule of this court. Dunn v. Dunn, 149 Ind. 424.

As a cause for a new trial it is urged that the court erred in giving, of its own motion, instruction number three. The instructions are not in the record. We find copied into the record, but not in a bill of exceptions, what purports to he a set of instructions; but there appears no prefatory recitals of the clerk, no exceptions, no signature of court or attorney, nor any other evidence that they were the instructions given to the jury; besides, it is firmly settled by a long line of decisions that instructions in a criminal case can only be brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. Bealer v. State, 150 Ind. 390, and cases'cited.

The only other question argued is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence is in sharp conflict. We have no power to weigh it, and hence can not disturb the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.E. 19, 154 Ind. 107, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-ind-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack