Humble v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | 25,240 |
| Citation | 160 N.E. 41,199 Ind. 653 |
| Parties | Humble v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Errors assigned on appeal are waived when not discussed in the "Points and Authorities" part of appellant's brief. p. 654.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.---Objections to court's rulings must be shown by record and appellant's brief on appeal.---Objections to the court's rulings must have been made in the trial court, and this fact must be shown by the record and by appellant's brief to obtain a review thereof on appeal. p. 654.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.---Specific objections to admission of evidence must be made and no others are available on appeal.---A party objecting to the admission of evidence must state to the trial court the specific grounds of objection and only such objections are available on appeal as were there made and ought to have been sustained. p. 654.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.---Validity of search warrant or affidavit therefor must be questioned in trial court.---The validity of a search warrant or of the affidavit on which it was issued cannot be questioned on appeal unless the question was presented to the trial court. p. 655.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Evidence considered on appeal in determining whether verdict sustained by evidence.---An appellate tribunal can only consider the evidence supporting a verdict in determining whether it is sustained by sufficient evidence. p. 657.
6. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Evidence held sufficient to sustain convic-viction for possessing intoxicating liquor.---Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor found in defendant's possession in her husband's home during his absence. p. 658.
7. INTOXICATING LIQUOR.---Presumption as to coercion of wife by husband to commit crime of possessing intoxicating liquor.---The mere fact that the premises where intoxicating liquor was found constituted the home of the defendant and her husband would not, of itself, raise the presumption that the husband coerced the defendant to commit the crime of having possession of intoxicating liquor. p. 658.
From Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.
Isabella Humble was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Edward R. Templer and Clarence E. Benadum, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and Dale F. Stansbury, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of having the possession of intoxicating liquor on or about January 26, 1926, in the county of Delaware, State of Indiana.
The affidavit alleges that said possession was unlawful. The trial was by jury and the jury returned a verdict finding the appellant, Isabella Humble, guilty, and fixed and assessed her punishment at a fine in the sum of $ 300 and that she be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of five months.
A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and judgment rendered upon the verdict, and from such judgment the defendant appealed. The only error properly assigned and not waived is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. And the only question presented in appellant's brief is the ruling of the court upon the specifications of said motion, that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
A motion was made to quash the affidavit and the ruling on this motion was assigned as error, but it has been waived by the appellant not discussing the ruling in any way under "Points and Authorities" in her brief. Tow v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 253, 151 N.E. 697; Land v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 342, 151 N.E. 823; Supreme Court Rule 22.
It is alleged by the appellant under "Points and Authorities" in her brief that the court erred in admitting in evidence facts discovered by a search warrant which appellant alleges was illegal and void, but it does not appear from appellant's brief or the record that any of these objections were made in the trial court or that the trial court had any opportunity to decide any of the questions now complained of. A party objecting to the admission of evidence or moving to strike out must state to the trial court the specific grounds of objections and only such objections are available on appeal as were there made and ought to have been sustained. Pocker v State (1926), 197 Ind. 599, 150 N.E. 408; Gillenwater v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 556 147 N.E. 714; Musser v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 423, 61 N.E. 1; Howard v. State (1921), 191 Ind. 232, 131 N.E. 403; Massachusetts, etc., Ins. Co. v. State, ex rel. (1921), 191 Ind. 595, 131 N.E. 398; Fame Laundry Co. v. Henry (1924), 195 Ind. 453, 144 N.E. 545.
No question of the validity of the search warrant or of the affidavit for the same was in any way presented in the trial court, therefore appellant cannot raise these questions on appeal. Sanford v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 198, 152 N.E. 814; Wishmire v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 114, 147 N.E. 278; Volderauer v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 415, 143 N.E. 674.
The evidence of the state connecting the appellant with the possession of liquor is that when the officers kicked in the door and went into the residence of Joseph Humble, they found his wife in the house and another person named Earnest Willis, who was a roomer at the house. That appellant took a pitcher out of the kitchen cabinet and threw it towards a sink. The appellant claims that a wife who is not shown to own or have the exclusive control of the intoxicating liquor found in her husband's house is not liable for the intoxicating liquor found therein, and refers to Dressler v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 8, 141 N.E. 801; Caldwell v. State (1922), 193 Ind. 237, 137 N.E. 179; Welch v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 258, 150 N.E. 761, in support of said proposition.
Mervin Collins, a police officer, testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial