Hartman v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | 24,486 |
| Citation | 145 N.E. 310,195 Ind. 327 |
| Parties | Hartman v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---New Trial.---Finding not Sustained.---Must be Shown in Brief.---A motion for new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence is not sustained where appellant fails to show in his brief or argument an absence of proof to sustain any particular essential element of the offense as charged, and there was competent evidence to prove venue and the offense. p. 328.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.---Appeal.---Sufficiency of Evidence to Preclude Review.---Where there is ample evidence, unchallenged at the trial, to warrant the finding of guilty by the trial court the supreme court is precluded from considering the evidence of appellant denying the facts proved by the state. p. 328.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.---Appeal.---Objection Necessary.---Competency of Evidence.---An objection to the admission of incompetent evidence will not be considered on appeal unless the alleged error was objected to at the trial and presented to the trial court by a motion for a new trial. p. 329.
From Marion Criminal Court (54,751); James A. Collins, Judge.
Sam Hartman was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Alexander Belle, S. C. Bodner and William B. Miller, for appellant.
U. S Lesh, Attorney-General, and Owen S. Boling, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for violation of the prohibition law, amended § 4, Acts 1923 p. 70, as charged in an indictment, for having, on April 28, 1923, in Marion county, Indiana, unlawfully sold, bartered, exchanged, and given away, intoxicating liquor to a person named in the indictment.
The trial was by the court without a jury upon appellant's plea of not guilty. Judgment of a fine and imprisonment followed the finding of guilty by the court upon the second count of the indictment, from which judgment appellant appeals, and assigns as error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, for the causes that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law.
Appellant attempts to make the point that the motion for a new trial should have been sustained because there was no legal evidence to sustain the finding of guilty by the court, in that the evidence fails to establish the essential elements of the offense. He fails utterly to show by his brief, or argument, an absence or lack of proof to sustain any particular essential element of the offense as charged. Appellant neither made an objection to the introduction of any of the evidence, nor moved to strike out any evidence introduced. The only exception to the court's ruling in the progress of the case, was to the overruling of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial