Goodman v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 23346.,23346. |
| Citation | 121 N.E. 826,188 Ind. 70 |
| Parties | GOODMAN et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; John B. Peterson, Judge.
Irwin Goodman and another were convicted upon an affidavit charging violation of Burns' Ann. St. 1914, § 2273, by buying, concealing, and aiding in the concealment of certain described stolen property, and they appeal. Judgment affirmed.
Dwight M. Kinder, of Gary, for appellants.
Ele Stansbury and Dale F. Stansbury, both of Indianapolis, and Elmer E. Hastings, of Washington, Ind., for the State.
This was an action by the state of Indiana against the appellants, Irwin Goodman and Louis Goodman, on an affidavit charging that appellants violated section 2273, Burns 1914, by buying, concealing, and aiding in the concealment of certain stolen property described in the affidavit. There was a plea of not guilty. Trial by jury.
The jury brought in a verdict as follows:
“We, the jury, find the defendants, Irwin Goodman and Louis Goodman, guilty as they stand charged in the affidavit; and we further find that the property described in the affidavit was of the value of $6; and we fix their punishment at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days, and that they be fined in the sum of $500, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for a period of one year.”
On that verdict the court rendered the following judgment:
“It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendants, Irwin Goodman and Louis Goodman, are each guilty as they stand charged in the affidavits herein of the crime of receiving stolen goods; that they each be imprisoned in the jail of Lake county, Indiana, for a period of 30 days, and that they each do make their fine to the state of Indiana in the sum of $500, together with all costs herein laid out and expended, and that they each be and they are each disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of profit or trust for the period of one year, and the sheriff of this county is charged with the due execution of this judgment.”
A motion for a new trial was made by appellants and overruled. Also a motion for a venire de novo was made by each of them and overruled. This motion was made before the motion for new trial.
[1] The appellants claim that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, in that they claim that the names of the persons alleged to have stolen the goods in controversy are not sufficiently proven; also that the evidence does not sufficiently show that both of the defendants were guilty of the offense charged; also that the evidence fails to show the ownership of the property in controversy. These contentions must each be overruled. An examination of the evidence on each of these propositions shows that it is clearly sufficient. It is true that the evidence is conflicting and contradictory on some of these points; but this court cannot weigh the evidence. Although the evidence favorable to an appellee may be contradicted and unsatisfactory, it will be sufficient if standing alone with the inferences therefrom it supports the judgment. Public Savings Ins. Co. v. Greenwald (App.) 118 N. E. 556;Born v. Union Elevator Co. (App.) 118 N. E. 973;Shores-Mueller Co. v. Best (App.) 118 N. E. 688.
[2] This court cannot reverse a case for lack of evidence where the court is not convinced that some essential element of the case is wholly unsupported by evidence. Shira v. State (Sup.) 119 N. E. 833.
[3] Appellants also claim that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions tendered by appellants, and in giving of its own motion certain instructions over the objection of appellants. These instructions are not made part of the record by bill of exceptions; therefore no question as to the giving or refusal of such instructions can now be considered in this court. Instructions given or refused in a criminal case and the exceptions arising thereon must be presented to this court for review by making them a part of the record by special bill of exceptions. Donovan v. State, 185 Ind. 15, 111 N. E. 433;Hahn v. State, 185 Ind. 210, 113 N. E. 725;Donovan v. State, 170...
To continue reading
Request your trial