Snoddy v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Snoddy v. State

99 N.E. 484, 179 Ind. 701, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 158

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1912

DocketNo. 22,190

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 N.E. 484 (Snoddy 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

Snoddy v. State, 99 N.E. 484, 179 Ind. 701, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 158 (Ind. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Monks, J.

Appellant and seven other persons were charged in the court below with the crime of riotous conspiracy under the provisions of §2335 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, §439.

Appellant was granted a separate trial and was convicted of said offense. The only error properly assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The only cause for a new trial urged as a ground for reversal is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance. The record in regard to said motion and the overruling thereof is in the same condition as in Adams v. State (1913), ante 44, 99 N. E. 483, and on the authority of that case we hold that the affidavit for continuance is not a part of the record, and that no question is therefore presented as to the action of the court thereon.

There being nothing in the record to sustain appellant’s contention that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Monks, J.

Appellant and seven other persons were charged in the court below with the crime of riotous conspiracy under the provisions of §2335 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, §439.

Appellant was granted a separate trial and was convicted of said offense. The only error properly assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The only cause for a new trial urged as a ground for reversal is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance. The record in regard to said motion and the overruling thereof is in the same condition as in Adams v. State (1913), ante 44, 99 N. E. 483, and on the authority of that case we hold that the affidavit for continuance is not a part of the record, and that no question is therefore presented as to the action of the court thereon.

There being nothing in the record to sustain appellant’s contention that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.E. 484, 179 Ind. 701, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snoddy-v-state-ind-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack