Chandler v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | 13,635 |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. STATE OF INDIANA |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.
Don Chandler was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appealed.
Affirmed.
John T Walterhouse and Thomas V. Miller for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was charged with the offense of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, in violation of § 4 of the act of 1925 (Acts 1925 p. 144, § 2717 Burns 1926). Jury trial resulted in a conviction.
Overruling of appellant's motion for new trial is the only error properly assigned; and the only reasons for new trial presented are that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash search warrant and suppress the evidence.
It appears from the evidence that appellant's house and premises were search by two police officers, each of whom testified on the trial as witnesses for the State, that, as a result of the search, they found under the porch of appellant's residence a bottle containing whisky, and three empty quart bottles in a coal shed fifteen or twenty feet from the residence. Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, admitted that he had "some bottles in the coal shed," and admitted that the officers found the whisky under the porch of his dwelling, but denied that he put it there, stating that it was placed under his porch as a part of a "frame up." It is apparent that the members of the jury who saw appellant on the witness-stand and heard him testify did not believe his story. It is not the law, as assumed by appellant, that a conviction of one charged with a crime will not be affirmed on appeal where the evidence leaves some reasonable hypothesis of innocence. On the contrary, it is for the jury to decide what facts were proved by the evidence; and if the inference of guilt might fairly have been drawn from the evidence, it is the duty of the appellate tribunal to accept the finding of the jury as approved by the trial court in overruling motion for new trial, although other inferences might be drawn from the evidence. Lee v. State (1900), 156 Ind. 541, 60 N.E. 299; Keith v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 376, 61 N.E. 716. The verdict is sustained by sufficient evidence.
This court will not search the record to reverse the finding of the trial court in a criminal prosecution. It is assumed on appeal that all objections to the evidence and all exceptions to the rulings of the trial court as to the admission and rejection of evidence of which appellant complains are set forth in appellant's brief. it is the settled rule in this state that if appellant in his brief fails to point out in the record where alleged error of the court in the admission or rejection of evidence may be found, or to show any exception taken by him to the court's ruling thereon no question in reference thereto is presented for review. McCrocklin v. State (1919), 189 Ind. 254, 126 N.E. 678, and cases there cited; Robinson v. State (1916), 184 Ind. 208, 110 N.E. 980. It follows that it will not be necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial