Hunt v. State

• Decision Date: 02 December 1921
• Docket Number: 23,975
• Citation: 133 N.E. 8,191 Ind. 406
• Parties: Hunt v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

133 N.E. 8

191 Ind. 406

Hunt v. State of Indiana

No. 23,975

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 2, 1921

From Delaware Circuit Court; William A. Thompson, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Ada Hunt. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomas V. Miller and John P. Walterhouse, for appellant.

U. S Lesh, Attorney-General, and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, for the state.

Ewbank C. J. Myers, J., absent.

OPINION

Ewbank, C. J.

The appellant was prosecuted by affidavit and upon a trial by jury was found "guilty, as charged in the affidavit." She filed a motion for a new trial for the alleged reasons that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law, and that certain motions addressed to the "amended affidavit" were each erroneously overruled. Her motion for a new trial was overruled, to which ruling the appellant excepted.

The original affidavit contained three counts, and was filed July 8, 1920. An amended affidavit containing four counts was filed by leave of court on February 1, 1921, at which time the appellant filed written objections to such filing, and excepted to the action of the court in overruling them, and then filed her motion to strike out such amended affidavit, and excepted to the order overruling it. She then filed a motion to quash each of the four counts of the amended affidavit, and excepted to the overruling of that motion.

After the verdict had been returned and the motion for a new trial overruled, the appellant moved in arrest of judgment for the alleged reason that the facts stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense, which motion was also overruled and appellant excepted. She has assigned as error the overruling of her objections to the filing of the amended affidavit, and of each of her motions to strike out such amended affidavit, and to quash each of certain counts thereof, and of her motion for a new trial, and her motion in arrest of judgment.

Appellant's brief does not set out the amended affidavit nor any of the counts in it, and for that reason it does not present for review any of the motions attacking such amended affidavit, either by asking that it be quashed, or that the judgment be arrested. These questions do not arise upon the original affidavit, which is all that appears in the brief.

A rule of this court (No. 22, clause 5) provides that "if the insufficiency of...