Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 06 November 1939
• Docket Number: 27252.
• Citation: 23 N.E.2d 267,216 Ind. 106
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

23 N.E.2d 267

216 Ind. 106

BROWN v. STATE.

No. 27252.

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 6, 1939

Appeal from Vanderburgh Circuit Court; John W. Spencer judge.

Lockyear & Lockyear and Charles J. Eichel, all of Evansville, for appellant.

Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Warren W. Martin, Deputy Atty Gen., for appellee.

SHAKE Judge.

Appellant was convicted of conspiring with others to commit a felony. The only alleged errors presented are with respect to the overruling of her motion for a new trial. The causes in that motion here relied upon are as follows:

'15. For error of law occurring at the trial in this to-wit: That the court erred in permitting the following question to be asked and answered by George Simpson, to-wit:

"Q. Now, before this robbery was committed, had you and this defendant talked about any other robberies?

" Mr. Clarence Rumer: I want to object to the question because it is not material to the issue is this case.

" By the Court: Objection overruled. Exception to the defendant.

"A. Yes.'

'16. For error of law occurring at the trial in this to-wit: That the court erred in permitting the following question to be asked and answered by George Simpson, to-wit:

"Q. Now, on the night of the filling station holdup, when you first had a conversation with this defendant Harriett Brown concerning the location of this oil station, did this defendant ask you to get these two other boys and come back and talk to her that had participated in these other holdups?

" Mr. Clarence Rumer: We object to that. That is leading.

" By the Court: Objection overruled. Exception to defendant.

"A. She asked me where Carl was at. His right name is William Ewbanks. Robert was in the front of the restaurant but he was sick.'

* * *

* * *

'19. That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.'

The parts of the above excerpts which are in italics do not appear in the motion for a new trial. These have been taken from the bill of exceptions and inserted in their proper place to more fully disclose the facts concerning the alleged errors. It will be noted, therefore, that the motion for a new trial does not disclose whether the questions complained of were propounded on behalf of the state or the defendant Harriett Brown; what objections, if any, were made to them at the time; or whether exceptions were reserved. Such indefinite assignments do not present anything for review on appeal.

When error is predicated upon the admission or rejection of testimony, the motion for a new trial should set out the question and answer, if these was one, or the substance thereof. This was done in the case at bar, but that is not enough. The objection urged below should also be set forth together with the ruling of the court with respect thereto, and it should be made to appear that a timely exception was saved. This is necessary for two good reasons: (1) that the trial court may be fully apprised of the alleged error so that it may have an opportunity to correct the ruling by granting the motion if it deems it proper to do so; and (2) that this court may be able to consider the matter on appeal without being burdened to search the record for grounds to reverse. The First National Bank of Cambridge City et al. v. Colter, 1878, 61 Ind. 153, 159; Greer v. State, 1929, 201 Ind. 386, ...