State v. Rebel

Indiana Court of Appeals

State v. Rebel

322 N.E.2d 386, 163 Ind. App. 177, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1013

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

DocketNo. 1-674A92

StatusPublished

This text of 322 N.E.2d 386 (State v. Rebel) 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

State v. Rebel, 322 N.E.2d 386, 163 Ind. App. 177, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Robertson, C.J.

The sole issue of this appeal is raised by the plaintiif-appellant, State, and concerns the exclusion of highway construction plans as an exhibit in a condemnation suit against the defendants-appeilees, the Rebels.

We affirm the trial court.

The facts relevant to the trial court’s decision are: During the trial the State repeatedly attempted to introduce a set of highway construction plans for the purpose of showing the jury that the Rebels would have access to the highway and that their property would not be landlocked. The trial court did not allow the plans to be introduced as an exhibit.

We hold that the trial court did not err for three reasons. First, the State did not make an offer to prove as required by Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Trial Rule 43(C) and has, therefore, waived the question. State v. Lonergan (1969), 252 Ind. 376, 248 N.E.2d 352. Second, the appraisers testified [178]*178that their opinions on damages were based on the assumption that the Rebels would have access which had the effect of getting the questioned evidence before the jury. And last, the admission of such an exhibit is within the discretion of the trial court. Dill v. Dill et al. (1950), 120 Ind. App. 61, 88 N.E.2d 396.

Judgment affirmed.

Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.

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

Robertson, C.J.

The sole issue of this appeal is raised by the plaintiif-appellant, State, and concerns the exclusion of highway construction plans as an exhibit in a condemnation suit against the defendants-appeilees, the Rebels.

We affirm the trial court.

The facts relevant to the trial court’s decision are: During the trial the State repeatedly attempted to introduce a set of highway construction plans for the purpose of showing the jury that the Rebels would have access to the highway and that their property would not be landlocked. The trial court did not allow the plans to be introduced as an exhibit.

We hold that the trial court did not err for three reasons. First, the State did not make an offer to prove as required by Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Trial Rule 43(C) and has, therefore, waived the question. State v. Lonergan (1969), 252 Ind. 376, 248 N.E.2d 352. Second, the appraisers testified [178]*178that their opinions on damages were based on the assumption that the Rebels would have access which had the effect of getting the questioned evidence before the jury. And last, the admission of such an exhibit is within the discretion of the trial court. Dill v. Dill et al. (1950), 120 Ind. App. 61, 88 N.E.2d 396.

Judgment affirmed.

Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 386, 163 Ind. App. 177, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rebel-indctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack