Fronczak v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1925
• Docket Number: 24,763
• Citation: 149 N.E. 725,197 Ind. 48
• Parties: Fronczak v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

149 N.E. 725

197 Ind. 48

Fronczak v. State of Indiana

No. 24,763

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 8, 1925

1. CRIMINAL LAW.---By failure to recite the evidence in his brief on appeal, an appellant waives all errors in connection with the evidence.---By failing to give a condensed recital of the evidence in his brief, as required by Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, an appellant waives all errors claimed to have been made in connection with the evidence. p. 49.

2 STATUTES.---Section 20 of the prohibition law of 1917 defining offense of maintaining liquor nuisance was not unconstitutional.---The title of the prohibition act of 1917 (Acts 1917 p. 15, 8356a et seq. Burns' Supp. 1921) was broad enough to cover the provisions of 20 of the act defining the offense of maintaining a liquor nuisance, and therefore, was not unconstitutional because of contravening Art. 4, 19 of the Constitution. p. 49.

3. INDICTMENT.---Where the acts that will constitute a criminal offense are stated in the statute, an affidavit charging the offense in the language of the statute is sufficient.---Where a statute defines a crime and states what acts shall constitute a violation thereof, it is sufficient to charge a violation in the language of the statute. p. 49.

From Lake Criminal Court; Martin J. Smith, Judge.

Joe Fronczak was convicted of maintaining a liquor nuisance, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Sambor & McDaniel, for appellant.

U. S Lesh, Attorney-General and Ethan A. Miles, for the State.

OPINION

Gemmill, J.

Appellant was prosecuted on an affidavit in three counts in which he was charged with various violations of the prohibition law. He was found guilty on count two of the amended affidavit of maintaining a common nuisance, which offense is defined in § 20 of ch. 4 of the Acts of 1917, § 8356t Burns' Supp. 1921. Overruling his motion for a new trial and overruling his motion in arrest of judgment are assigned as errors.

The causes for a new trial are that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the finding is contrary to law. Appellant's brief does not comply with that part of Rule 22 of this court which provides that when the insufficiency of evidence is assigned, the brief shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form. If an appellant fails to recite in his brief the substance of the evidence given on the trial, he waives all errors that are claimed to have been made in connection with the evidence. City of Richmond v. Lincoln (1906), 167 Ind. 468, 79 N.E. 445; Ireland v. Huffman (1909), 172 Ind. 278, 88 N.E. 508; Carmody v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 158, 98 N.E. 870; Bradley v. Onstott (1914), 180 Ind. 687, 103 N.E. 798; Wallace v. Shoemaker (1924), 194 Ind. 419, 143 N.E. 285. The finding of the court is not contrary to law. It is not shown that there was error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

In support of his motion in arrest of judgment, appellant contends that the section upon which the prosecution is predicated is unconstitutional and void because it is in contravention of Art. 4, § 19 of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides that every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. This court has held that the provisions of § 20, supra, are covered by the title and that said section is not contrary to the state Constitution, as claimed by appe...