Holler v. State, 27611.

• Decision Date: 29 December 1941
• Docket Number: No. 27611.,27611.
• Citation: 219 Ind. 303,38 N.E.2d 242
• Parties: HOLLER v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

219 Ind. 303

38 N.E.2d 242

HOLLER

v.STATE.

No. 27611.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 29, 1941.

Dolph Holler was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.Appeal from Dearborn Circuit Court; Morris W. McManaman, judge.

Crawford A. Peters, of Aurora, for appellant.

George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., and Norman E. Duke and Robert E. Agnew, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.

FANSLER, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of receiving stolen goods.

He assigns error upon the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment and the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

The motion in arrest of judgment was filed after judgment. It is well settled that no question is presented by a motion in arrest of judgment filed after the judgment is entered. Stapert v. State, 1924, 195 Ind. 338, 143 N.E. 587;Patton v. State, 1923, 192 Ind. 632, 135 N.E. 795.

Several causes for a new trial are included in the motion and presented by the brief.

Witnesses were permitted to identify a brass plate which they said was of the same kind and character as eleven brass plates which were stolen. One of the witnesses testified that he had taken eleven similar plates to the appellant's place of business and there sold them. An employee of the appellant said that eleven such plates were delivered and paid for, and that the appellant told him to hide them. The plates alleged to have been stolen seemed not to have been available. In such a case it would have been perfectly proper for witnesses to describe the plates, and no reason is seen why a description of the plates could not be established by a sample plate. The appellant cites no authority which supports his contention that the identification of this plate was prejudicial to his rights, and we cannot see that his rights were prejudiced.

It is contended that there is not sufficient evidence to establish the venue of the cause. The case was tried in Dearborn County. There was testimony that the appellant's place of business was located in Aurora, and that he received the stolen goods at his place of business. This was sufficient under the authorities. Lencionia v. State, 1929, 200 Ind. 528, 164 N.E. 271;Christ v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 56, 131 N.E. 820.

He complains because the evidence does not disclose that the stolen goods were of the value alleged in the affidavit. It is sufficient if a value is proved bringing the case within the statute. Eicks v. State, 1933, 204 Ind. 417, 184 N.E. 407. He was charged with...