Detrich v. State, No. 26100.

• Docket Nº: No. 26100.
• Citation: 204 Ind. 26, 182 N.E. 706
• Case Date: October 26, 1932
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

204 Ind. 26
182 N.E. 706

DETRICH et al.
v.
STATE.

No. 26100.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 26, 1932.

Appeal from Vermillion Circuit Court; Wm. C. Wait, Judge.

Walter E. Detrich and James Clark, alias William M. Long, were convicted of bank robbery, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Roscoe Hollingsworth and Carl W. Lambert, both of Lebanon, for appellants.

James M. Odgen, Atty. Gen., and R. L. Bailey, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROLL, C. J.

Appellants and each of them were charged by affidavit in two counts with the crime of bank robbery. Acts 1927, p. 470, c. 158 (Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1929, § 2425.1).

The record discloses the following facts: The crime is charged as having been committed on or about December 16, 1930. The affidavit was filed in the Vermillion circuit court on December 22, 1930. On the following day appellants separately, orally moved the court to quash the affidavit and each count thereof, which motions were overruled and exceptions taken. Each appellant was then arraigned in open court and pleaded not guilty, whereupon the cause was assigned for trial January 2, 1931.

On December 27, 1930, appellants filed their verified motion for continuance, and after the court had heard argument of counsel, overruled said motion with exceptions to appellants.

On December 31, 1930, Aikman & Sawyer withdrew as counsel for appellants, and the court then appointed Colonel C. Sawyer, pauper attorney for the county, to defend the defendants as paupers. The defendants then filed their affidavits and motion for a change of venue from the judge on account of bias and prejudice, which was overruled. The affidavit for change of venue was sworn to before Colonel C. Sawyer on December 29, 1930, but was not filed until December 31, 1930.

On January 2, 1931, the defendants asked leave to withdraw their pleas of not guilty which was granted, after which each defendant filed separate motions to quash. Each of said motions were overruled with exceptions, whereupon each defendant entered his plea of not guilty.

The cause was submitted to a jury for trial. Neither appellants nor their attorney made any opening statements, offered no evidence, tendered no instructions, and made no argument. The jury returned a verdict finding each defendant guilty as charged.

Appellants filed motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled. Judgment of life imprisonment was entered on the verdict. Appellants' motion for a new trial was overruled, and appeal was prayed and granted to this court.

[182 N.E. 707]

[1][2] Appellants assign as error the overruling of their motions to quash, overruling of their motion in arrest, and overruling of their motion for a new trial. Appellants have waived the first two assignments of error by not addressing any points or authorities thereto whatsoever. Partlow v. State (1929) 201 Ind. 207, 214, 166 N. E. 651;Land v. State (1926) 198 Ind. 342, 151 N. E. 823;Woodward v. State (1926) 198 Ind. 70, 152 N. E. 277;Flannigan et al. v. State (1922) 192 Ind. 19, 134 N. E. 885. In appellants' joint and several motion for a new trial appellants assigned nineteen reasons, but reference to their brief discloses that they have made points and cited authorities to only three of the nineteen reasons set out in their motion for a new trial, to wit: (1) Overruling their motion for a continuance; (2) overruling their application for change of venue from the judge; (3) irregularity in the proceedings of the court and abuse of discretion by which they were prevented from having a fair trial, in that the court erred in denying them their constitutional rights to be heard by themselves and counsel. Under the authorities above cited, all other reasons assigned in their motion for a new trial are waived. Appellants urge as their first point that the court should have granted their motion for a continuance. The reasons for a continuance as set forth in their motion in substance are as follows: They recite the record up to the time of filing their motion, and that they have been confined in jail during all the time since their arrest; that they live several hundred miles distant from Vermillion county, and that their relatives upon whom they depend for counsel, help, and assistance also live several hundred miles away; that they have been unable to communicate with them to prepare for their defense; that they are without means to employ counsel, but if given a reasonable time they will be able to communicate with their friends and relatives and secure funds to employ counsel to defend them; that they have tentatively employed the law firm of Aikman & Sawyer of Newport, Ind., as their attorneys but have been unable to pay them any retainer fee; that said attorneys have also been unable to communicate with any of defendants' relatives or to secure any funds to enable said counsel to make necessary arrangements and secure witnesses and prepare for the defense of said action; that if they are not granted a continuance they will be unable to...