Hammond v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 25594.,25594. |
| Citation | 200 Ind. 343,163 N.E. 262 |
| Parties | HAMMOND v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Rush Circuit Court; Howard E. Barrett, Special Judge.
Thomas Hammond was convicted of selling liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.Albert C. Stevens, of Rushville, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Gause, of Indianapolis, for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, in violation of section 4, c. 48, Acts 1925 (section 2717, Burns' 1926). He was tried by a jury, which found that he was guilty. Judgment of fine of $100, of imprisonment for a period of 30 days, and for costs was rendered on the verdict. In this court he has assigned as error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. Other errors assigned are included in the motion for a new trial.
The causes for a new trial are that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law, that the judgment is not fairly supported by the evidence, and that the court erred in admitting certain evidence.
[1] The appellant contends that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, as the conviction was had upon the testimony of a named witness as to the facts substantiating the charge, while on a former trial of the defendant this witness had testified to a different state of facts. It was the duty of the jury to determine if this witness told the truth in the trial under consideration. In Jackson v. State (1924) 194 Ind. 561, 143 N. E. 625, this court said:
“Questions as to the credibility of witnesses, and as to what inferences shall be drawn from the facts proved are for the jury and the trial court.”
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.
[2] A character witness for the defendant was asked the following question on cross-examination: “You know it is your duty as township assessor to assess additional improvements of property?” An objection was made to this question, which was overruled. To this ruling the defendant took an exception. The answer was: “In 1927 was not the year to assess real estate.” The question did not constitute proper cross-examination; but the defendant could not have been injured by the evidence secured thereby. The error was harmless and this cause cannot be reversed because of same.
[3] One of the causes for a new trial was: “The judgment is not fairly supported by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...the jury. Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566, 230 N.E.2d 416; Sparks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 343, 42 N.E.2d 40; Hammond v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 343, 163 N.E. 262. An instruction in a criminal case is erroneous, as an invasion of the province of the jury, if it intimates an opinion ......
-
Pritchard v. State
...witness and the Court has no right to invade that province. Sparks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 343, 347, 42 N.E.2d 40; Hammond v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 343, 344, 163 N.E. 262; Culley v. State (1923), 192 Ind. 687, 689, 138 N.E. 260. We construe the above cited cases as stating that an instru......