Grecco v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29800,29800 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.2d 714,240 Ind. 584 |
| Parties | Gerald GRECCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert S. McCain, Thomas M. Moorhead, Fort Wayne, Flanagan & McCain, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Patrick D. Sullivan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant has filed petition for rehearing contending that this Court erred in its original opinion (1) in failing to give a decision of a substantial question arising on the record and presented by appellant's brief, to-wit: as to whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to separate the jury, and (2) in holding this disposes of all questions presented to us on this appeal.
Our statement in our earlier opinion that such opinion 'disposes of all questions presented to us on this appeal' was predicated on the fact that no other questions were properly presented or brought before us on this appeal.
In appellant's original brief appellant asked that we consider whether certain instructions given by the court at the request of the State (Instructions 6, 7 & 8) were erroneous, but it is apparent that appellant failed to make any specific objections thereto in the trial court as required by Rule 1-7. Thus, all questions relative thereto are waived.
In the amendment to appellant's original brief he urged the question he is now asserting, to-wit: whether the overruling of his motion to separate the jury was error. Appellant, however, did not set forth in his brief in the Concise Statement of the Record as required by Rule 2-17(d) 1 anything whatever with reference to the motion to separate, there being no showing as to whether such a motion was filed, or ruled on, or what its contents were.
This rule was designed to enable each judge to consider intelligently each question presented without resorting to the record (only one copy of which is available to be shared by the five judges of this Court), and accordingly it is well settled that where appellant's brief fails to set forth lthe record so as to present fully a forth the record so as to present fully a question without resorting to the record, the the record to reverse the cause. Marks v. State, 1942, 220 Ind. 9, 40 N.E.2d 108; Waggoner v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 269, 85 N.E.2d 642; 9 Ind.Law Encyl., 'Criminal Law', § 693, pp. 189, 190, and cases therein cited under notes 29, 30 & 31.
The appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawson v. State
...of law in this State. See Prather v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 141, 246 N.E.2d 479; Grecco v. State, (1960) 240 Ind. 584, 166 N.E.2d 180, 167 N.E.2d 714 cert. denied, 364 U.S. 893, 81 S.Ct. 227, 5 L.Ed.2d 191; Bays v. State, (1959) 240 Ind. 37, 159 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, (1960) 361 U.S. 972......
-
Antrobus v. State, 169S6
...58 Am. Jur. Witnesses § 134.' 237 Ind. at 223, 143 N.E.2d at 654. See also Grecco v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 584, 166 N.E.2d 180, 167 N.E.2d 714; Carpenter v. Dame (1858), 10 Ind. Due to the nature of the objection to the witness' competency in this case, an examination which would satisfy t......
-
Israel v. Logansport Aerie No. 323, Fraternal Order of Eagles
...to reverse. Coleman, Ransom v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 663, 664, 175 N.E.2d 25; Grecco v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 584, 593, 166 N.E.2d 180, 167 N.E.2d 714; Snow v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 234, 236, 125 N.E.2d 802; Wood v. C. & E. R. R. Co. (1939), 215 Ind. 467, 470, 18 N.E.2d 772, 20 N.E.2d Ju......
-
Loper v. Standard Oil Co.
...to do.' See also Coleman, Ransom v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 663, 175 N.E.2d 25 and Grecco v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 584, 166 N.E.2d 180, 167 N.E.2d 714. The appellant does not need to set forth the lease in 'haec verba', but only those parts which concern the question. Motorists Mutual Insur......