Hahn v. State

• Decision Date: 03 October 1916
• Docket Number: No. 23073.,23073.
• Citation: 185 Ind. 210,113 N.E. 725
• Parties: HAHN v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

185 Ind. 210

113 N.E. 725

HAHN

v.STATE.

No. 23073.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 3, 1916.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James C. Collins, Judge.

Laudie Hahn was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and he appeals. Affirmed.

M. L. Clawson and F. S. La Monte, both of Indianapolis, for appellant. Evan B. Stotsenburg, Atty. Gen., Omer S. Jackson and Wilbur T. Gruber, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Alvah J. Rucker, of Indianapolis, for the State.

COX, C. J.

Appellant was convicted in the city court of Indianapolis of the misdemeanor of carrying a concealed weapon. From that conviction he appealed to the criminal court of Marion county, where the case was tried de novo before a jury, which also found him guilty. The court rendered judgment on the verdict of the jury, and from that judgment he has appealed here, assigning as error for which a reversal of the judgment is asked the action of the court overruling his motion for a new trial.

[1] Six of the counts for a new trial are based on the refusal of the court to give to the jury that number of special instructions requested in behalf of appellant. The question whether these instructions should have been given has not been brought before us in a manner to command a decision of it. 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 a special bill of exceptions. This has not been done in this case, and no question arising from the court's refusal to give the instructions asked is presented. Donovan v. State (1908) 170 Ind. 123, 83 N. E. 744;Williams v. State (1908) 170 Ind. 642, 85 N. E. 350;Carr v. State (1911) 175 Ind. 241, 93 N. E. 1071, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1190;Messell v. State (1911) 176 Ind. 214, 220, 95 N. E. 565;Donovan v. State (1916) 184 Ind. -, 111 N. E. 433. Numerous causes for a new trial, stated in appellant's motion, have for their bases testimony offered in his behalf and rejected by the court on objections interposed by the prosecuting attorney.

[2] The rule is elementary that exceptions taken during the trial to the admission or exclusion of evidence and presented to the trial court as causes for a new trial must, when presented for review on appeal, be shown by a bill of exceptions. Donovan v. State, supra.

[3] There is in the transcript in this case what purports to be an original bill of exceptions, containing a part of the evidence. It appears by file mark and also by record entry that this instrument was filed February 23, 1916. But it was not at that time a bill of exceptions; it was then nothing more than the official reporter's long report of his shorthand notes of a part of the evidence. It appears from a certificate of the judge appended to this report of a part of the evidence that it was settled as and...