Alexander v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 24,707 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 259,203 Ind. 288 |
| Parties | Alexander v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied February 24, 1932, Reported at: 203 Ind. 288 at 289.
1. CRIMINAL LAW---Instructions---How Brought into Record---Presentation for Review on Appeal.---On appeal in a criminal case, the instructions can only be brought into the record by a bill of exceptions, and where the instruction complained of is not brought into the record in that manner the action of the court is not presented for review. p. 289.
2. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion for New Trial---Because of Newly Discovered Evidence---Affidavits in Support Thereof---How Presented on Appeal.---Whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial because of newly discovered evidence was not presented for review on appeal where the affidavits in support of the motion for a new trial were not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. p. 289.
3. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion for New Trial---Affidavits in Support Thereof---Attached to and Bound with Motion for New Trial---Insufficient to Bring Them into Record on Appeal.---The fact that affidavits in support of a motion for a new trial were marked as exhibits to the motion for a new trial and bound with the motion adds nothing to the proposition that the affidavits are properly in the record by being copied therein by the clerk in making the transcript for appeal. p. 290.
From Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.
Ray Alexander was convicted of rape, and he appealed.
Affirmed.
A. E Needham, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and George J. Muller, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
The charge is rape upon a female child 13 years of age. Judgment upon the verdict of guilty. The only error sought to be presented is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. Upon this assigned error, the giving of an instruction to the jury, alleged to be erroneous, is sought to be presented. Neither this instruction, nor any of the instructions, is in the record by a bill of exceptions. The instruction is not before the court for consideration. Smith v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 614, 154, N. E. 370; McNaught v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 209, 142 N.E. 418; Gillespie v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 154, 142 N.E. 220; Patton v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 632, 135 N.E. 795.
The new trial was also sought because of newly discovered evidence, which cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duckworth v. Duckworth
... ... Involved---Controlling Element.---In determining custody of a ... minor child, interest (1) of child, (2) of parents, and (3) ... of the state should be considered, but the welfare and best ... interests of the child is the paramount consideration. p ... 2 ... PARENT ... ...