Boyle v. State, 29221

Decision Date06 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 29221,29221
Citation125 N.E.2d 707,234 Ind. 215
PartiesEdward BOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Cecil C. Tague, Sr., Brookville, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Givan, Deputy Atty. Gen., Clayton L. Bond, Pros. Atty., Brookville, for appellee.

LEVINE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon the verdict of the jury in a criminal prosecution under date of March 1, 1954, wherein appellant was charged by affidavit with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Appellant was found guilty by the jury, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

(1) Appellant claims irregularity in the proceedings of the court in the seating of prospective jurors at the commencement of the trial. The record fails to disclose any objections made by appellant at the time of such proceedings, or any ruling of the court on such objections, and, further, the record fails to disclose any objection made by appellant to the acceptance of the jury at the time of trial. In fact, the contrary is demonstrated by the fact that the defendant (appellant herein) accepted the jury. By failing to properly save the question for presentation to this court on appeal, appellant has waived said question, and it must be assumed that the jury was acceptable to him. Souerdike v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 523, 15 N.E.2d 379.

(2) Appellant contends that the State did not establish the venue of this action in that it was not clearly established that Franklin County is in the State of Indiana. While no witness made the direct statement that Franklin County is, in fact, in Indiana, or that the crime charged, in fact, occurred in Indiana, there was testimony that the crime did occur in Franklin County, Indiana, from which the jury might reasonably have inferred the fact. It is sufficient if facts and circumstances are shown from which the jury may find the actual location of the crime charged. Moore v. State, 1913, 179 Ind. 353, 101 N.E. 295.

(3) Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion, at the conclusion of the State's evidence, for a peremptory instruction for a finding of not guilty, for the reason that the State had failed to show that he was operating a motor vehicle at the time charged. It has been repeatedly held that this court will not weigh the evidence in order to reverse a judgment. Donaldson v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 434, 108 N.E.2d 888; Klaser v. State, 1929, 89 Ind.App. 561, 166 N.E. 21. A search of the record shows that there was ample evidence from which the jury might find that appellant, in fact, did operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

(4) Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to questions propounded to him by the State on cross-examination, which referred to proceedings before a Justice of the Peace on the same charge. Appellant avers that it was error to allow the State to ask him what his plea was to the charge before the Justice of the Peace. The motion for a new trial states:

'That the Court overruled the objection of the Defendant which objection was made to the question propounded by the State upon cross examination to the Defendant which said question was as follows: 'How did you plead to the charge.' The answer elected being 'Pleaded Guilty."

This error in the evidence was not saved by appellant for the reason that in his motion for a new trial neither his objections nor the substance of his objections were set out by him.

The rule is well established...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Short v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 27 décembre 1982
    ...is incorrect. Objections relating to the qualification of a juror must be timely made or they are waived. See, Boyle v. State, (1954) 234 Ind. 215, 125 N.E.2d 707. Appellant claims he was denied the right to a public trial, guaranteed by Article I, Secs. 12 and 13 of the Indiana Constitutio......
  • Kidwell v. State, 1267
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 6 octobre 1969
    ...of intoxicating liquor. In one case the Court merely stated that a search of the record supported the finding. Boyle v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 215, 125 N.E.2d 707. In three cases the Court stated that three to four witnesses testified that in their opinion the defendant was under the influe......
  • City of Indianapolis By and Through Bd. of Directors for Utilities v. Walker
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 30 juin 1960
    ...23, 26, 127 N.E.2d 244; Highshew v. Kushto, 1956, 126 Ind.App. 584, 593, 594, 131 N.E.2d 652, 133 N.E.2d 76; Boyle v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 215, 218, 219, 125 N.E.2d 707; Henderson v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 132, 134, 131 N.E.2d 326; Mattews v. Adoniram Grand Lodge of Perfection, Ind., 1958, ......
  • Stewart v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 22 septembre 1976
    ...irregularity is not saved for presentation on appeal and it is assumed that the jury was acceptable to the defendant. Boyle v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 215, 125 N.E.2d 707. Counsel for the defendant claims, however, that he did question the composition of the jury prior to selection, but that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT