Hartman v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24486.,24486. |
| Citation | 195 Ind. 327,145 N.E. 310 |
| Parties | HARTMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
Sam Hartman was convicted of violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Alexander Belle, S. C. Bodner, and Wm. B. Miller, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh and O. S. Boling, both of Indianapolis, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for violation of the Prohibition Law, § 4, amended by Acts 1923, chapter 23, as charged in an indictment, for having, on April 28, 1923, in Marion county, Ind., 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.
[1] 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 motion for a new trial. There was competent evidence in proof of the venue, and the sale of intoxicating liquor on the 28th day of April, 1923, to the person named in the indictment, which includes every essential element of the offense charged. He does not state that there is an entire absence of evidence in support of any material element to sustain the offense charged, whereby the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of guilty becomes a question of law, which is the necessary duty of an appellant to do. Harito v. State (Ind. Sup. 1923) 141 N. E. 57;Young v. State (Ind. Sup. 1923) 138 N. E. 258.
[2] There is ample evidence, unchallenged at the trial, to induce the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial