Lytle v. State
| Decision Date | 03 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 23,798 |
| Citation | 128 N.E. 836,189 Ind. 690 |
| Parties | Lytle v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Marion Criminal Court (50,525); James A. Collins, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Phil Lytle. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
William E. Henderson, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and Remster A. Bingham, for the state.
Appellant was tried by the court and convicted upon an affidavit charging him with a violation of § 4, Acts 1917 p. 15, § 8356a et seq. Burns' Supp. 1918, known as the Prohibition Law. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 100, and to imprisonment at the Indiana State Farm for a period of thirty days. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error.
The causes for which a new trial was prayed are: By these alleged causes we infer that appellant is seeking the benefit of subd. 9, § 2158 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, § 282, which provides that a new trial shall be granted "when the verdict of the jury or the finding of the court is contrary to law, or is not sustained by sufficient evidence."
It will be noticed that neither of the causes assigned for a new trial challenge the finding of the court. They are directed against the judgment, to which there was no objection or exception to its form or substance. Under these assignments appellant insists that there was no evidence to warrant a conviction. However this may be, this insistence is in support of causes not grounds for a new trial in a criminal case. Lindsey v. State (1882), 82 Ind. 7, 10; Hall v. McDonald (1908), 171 Ind. 9, 18, 85 N.E. 707; Indianapolis Elec. Supply Co. v. Trapschuh (1916), 63 Ind.App. 120, 114 N.E. 99; DeTarr v. State (1906), 37 Ind.App. 323, 76 N.E. 897.
No error is presented, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adkins v. State
...N.E. 674. See also: Utley v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 186, 142 N.E. 374; Koby v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 107, 136 N.E. 840; Lytle v. State, 1920, 189 Ind. 690, 128 N.E. 836; Inskeep v. Gilbert, 1910, 174 Ind. 726, 93 N.E. The statute 4 specifically sets out the causes which may be assigned for a......
-
Utley v. State
...grounds for a new trial under the statute. Section 2158, Burns' 1914; Nafe v. Leiter (1885) 103 Ind. 138, 2 N. E. 317;Lytle v. State (1920) 189 Ind. 690, 128 N. E. 836, and cases therein cited; Koby v. State (Ind. 1922) 136 N. E. 840. The appellant in his motion for a new trial attacks the ......
-
Utley v. State
... ... evidence." ... None of ... the above reasons assigned in the motion for a new trial are ... grounds for a new trial under the statute. § 2158 Burns ... 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584; Nafe v. Leiter ... (1885), 103 Ind. 138, 2 N.E. 317; Lytle v ... State (1920), 189 Ind. 690, 128 N.E. 836, and cases ... therein cited; Koby v. State (1922), 193 ... Ind. 107, 136 N.E. 840 ... The ... appellant in his motion for a new trial attacks the judgment ... of the court; but in his brief undertakes to discuss the ... ...
-
Koby v. State
... ... the law and the evidence ... Neither ... of the causes above specified for a new trial challenges the ... finding of the court and neither of them constitutes a ground ... for a new trial. § 2158 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, ... § 282; Lytle v. State (1920), 189 Ind ... 690, 128 N.E. 836; State, ex rel., v ... Davisson (1910), 174 Ind. 705, 93 N.E. 6; ... Migatz v. Stieglitz (1906), 166 Ind. 361, ... 77 N.E. 400; Lindsey v. State (1882), 82 ... It ... appears from appellant's brief under "Points and ... ...