Home/Indiana Supreme Court/Watt v. State

Watt v. State

234 N.E.2d 471, 249 Ind. 674, 1968 Ind. LEXIS 757
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 5, 1968
Docket31,084
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 234 N.E.2d 471 (Watt 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
Watt v. State, 234 N.E.2d 471, 249 Ind. 674, 1968 Ind. LEXIS 757 (Ind. 1968).

Opinion

Hunter, J.

The appellant herein is appealing from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Wayne County of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Prosecution was commenced in the City Court of Richmond, Indiana, on the basis of an Indiana Uniform Traffic Ticket, Ind. Anno. Stat. § 47-2326. Upon trial appellant was found guilty of the above stated offense. No formal affidavit or indictment was ever issued on this count. The only formal affidavit filed was one for public intoxication, and the City Court disposed of this count by a finding of not guilty.

Thereafter appeal was taken to the Wayne Circuit Court for a trial de novo. Appellant had filed a motion to quash the charge in the City Court and refiled the motion to quash in the Circuit Court. Both courts treated the Uniform Traffic Ticket as a proper affidavit and overruled the motion. Upon appellant’s entering a plea of not guilty, trial was had by jury. The trial resulted in the jury finding appellant guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon this verdict the court entered judgment fining appellant $250 plus costs and recommending suspension of his current driving license for one year.

A motion in arrest of judgment was filed and overruled.

The error assigned and relied upon by the appellant is the *676 overruling of his motion for new trial; specifically appellant first sets forth the following allegations of error:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial in this, to-wit:

A. The court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to quash.
B. The court erred in overruling defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment.
A motion to quash is the proper pleading by the accused to question material defects appearing on the face of the affidavit. Ind. Anno. Stat., § 9-1129 (1956 Repl.). Appellant’s motion to quash sets forth the following grounds:
1. The facts stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense.
2. The said affidavit or affidavits do not state the offense or offenses, charged with sufficient certainty.
3. That the pretended affidavit or affidavits herein filed are not sufficient in that they have not been sworn and subscribed to by an officer authorized to administer an oath, nor have they been approved by the Prosecuting Attorney.

The first pleading on the part of the State in a criminal action is either an indictment or affidavit, Ind. Anno. Stat. § 9-1103 (1956 Repl.). Thus, the only means by which a criminal action may be commenced in the State of Indiana is by one of these two pleadings. One of the primary purposes of such pleadings is to fulfill the requirements of the Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 13:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial ... , in the county in which the offense shall have been committed ... ; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him ...”

If the Uniform Traffic Ticket, as used in the instant case, is to serve as the initial pleading on the part of the State, we must decide whether it meets the requirements of a valid affidavit when challenged by a motion to quash.

*677 A reproduction of the Uniform. Traffic Ticket as used as an affidavit in the instant case is as follows:

INDIANA UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET AND COMPLAINT

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

Related

Butler v. State
658 N.E.2d 72 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1995)
Marshall v. State
602 N.E.2d 144 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1992)
United States v. Stephen Goot
894 F.2d 231 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
State v. Sutherlin
435 N.E.2d 996 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Hall
432 N.E.2d 679 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Hall
411 N.E.2d 366 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1980)
Defries v. State
342 N.E.2d 622 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1976)
Hess v. State
297 N.E.2d 413 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 N.E.2d 471, 249 Ind. 674, 1968 Ind. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watt-v-state-ind-1968.