Barrett v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 28877,28877 |
| Parties | BARRETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
T. Ernest Maholm, Indianapolis, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, William T. McClain, Dep. Attys. Gen., Elliott Hickam, Pros. Atty. Owen County, Spencer, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a verified application for permission to file a belated motion for a new trial.
Appellant was convicted of first degree arson on Frbruary 19, 1951, after a trial by jury. He was represented in the trial by two attorneys. The time for filing motion for a new trial expired March 21, 1951. On October 18, 1951, appellant filed his verified petition for permission to file a belated motion for new trial. An answer was filed by the State of Indiana under our Rule 1-3. On December 13, 1951, appellant was ordered returned from the Indiana State Prison for the purpose of giving evidence on his petition. On January 8, 1952, the court heard the evidence and argument of counsel, after which the petition was denied.
The sole assignment of error properly before this court is the denial of appellant's petition for permission to file a belated motion for new trial.
The evidence which was introduced on the petition was conflicting, and shows, among other things, that immediately after the trial one of the attorneys talked with appellant in regard to filing a motion for a new trial, and that ten days after judgment was entered a letter was sent to appellant by one of his attorneys, which was delivered to him on March 2, 1951. Appellant made no effort to contact his attorneys, the court, or the public defender, or to personally file a motion for a new trial.
Section 9-1903, Burns' 1942 Replacement, requires that a motion for a new trial be filed within thirty days from the date of the verdict or finding. However, trial courts have an inherent right to grant a new trial, where the ends of justice require, even though a motion for a new trial has not been filed within the statutory period. See State ex rel. Walker v Youngblood, 1947, 225 Ind. 375, 75 N.E.2d 551; Walker alias Walters v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 552, 82 N.E.2d 245; Joseph v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 496, 99 N.E.2d 244. It is necessary that an appellant show, through happenings or events which have no connection with the actual trial, and which have not been brought about by the fault of the litigant, that his time for filing such motion has expired, and that, because of the happenings or events, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. State, 30312
...of time. Anderson v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 491, 93 N.E.2d 201; Joseph v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 496, 99 N.E.2d 244; Barrett v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 533, 105 N.E.2d 508; State ex rel. Casey v. Murray (1952), 231 Ind. 74, 106 N.E.2d The policy behind such a principle of law is sound. No pa......
-
State v. Hill, 1114
...the rules as to a timely filing of said motion evidently relied upon a line of cases from the State of Indiana, viz.: Barrett v. State, 230 Ind. 533, 105 N.E.2d 508; Haley v. State, 235 Ind. 333, 133 N.E.2d 565; State ex rel. Walker v. Youngblood, 225 Ind. 375, 75 N.E.2d 551. Our search of ......
-
Jones v. State
...v. Hancock Cir. Ct. (1950), 228 Ind. 90, 89 N.E.2d 545; Joseph, Pierce v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 529, 141 N.E.2d 109; Barrett v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 533, 105 N.E.2d 508; Payton v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 577, 94 N.E.2d 592; Walker v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 552, 82 N.E.2d 245. In a belated......
-
Langley v. State, 30893
...in refusing permission to file the belated motion for new trial. The rule in this regard is set out succinctly in Barrett v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 533, 105 N.E.2d 508, as 'It is necessary that an appellant show, through happenings or events which have no connection with the actual trial, a......