McAdams v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 24749.,24749. |
| Citation | 196 Ind. 184,147 N.E. 764 |
| Parties | McADAMS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; Fred A. Heuring, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Albert McAdams and Matilda Sanders to obtain their release on bail, pending prosecution for murder. From a judgment denying bail, remanding petitioners to custody, they appeal. Affirmed.
Cody & Corbin, of Tell City, for appellants.
U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Connor D. Ross, First Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants, Albert McAdams and Matilda Sanders, were in jail in Perry county, Indiana, under a charge of murder in the first degree, preferred against them jointly by the grand jury of said Perry county. They filed their verified petition under section 2025, Burns' 1914, to be let to bail. A writ of habeas corpus was duly issued under said petition, and the sheriff made his return showing service of such writ and bringing the said petitioners, Albert McAdams and Matilda Sanders, before the Perry circuit court, and the judge thereof in vacation, on the 7th day of July, 1924; whereupon on said day a hearing was had on said petition, and the court rendered judgment denying petitioners the right to bail and remanding them to the custody of the sheriff to be confined in the Perry county jail to await trial.
On the same day of the hearing and judgment the petitioners filed their motion for a new trial, which, being overruled, appellants appealed, and the ruling of said court in overruling said motion is assigned as error.
[1] The only question presented by appellant's brief is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court. Appellants complain that the court erred in admitting certain testimony, but appellants do not point out any place in their brief where these alleged errors may be found in the record. The brief fails to state what objection or objections, if any, were made to such testimony. Such questions are therefore waived. Gray v. McLaughlin, 191 Ind. 190, 131 N. E. 518;Dampier v. State (Ind. Sup.) 144 N. E. 241;McCrocklin v. State, 189 Ind. 254, 126 N. E. 678.
Did the evidence sustain the finding of the trial court? Section 17 of the Bill of Rights, Burns' 1914, § 62, provides that:
[2] On application for bail by one charged with murder, the indictment stands with all its presumptions in favor of its truth until its force is broken by a showing that the grand jury acted on insufficient evidence, and the burden is on the accused to show that the proof of guilt is not evident and the presumption of guilt not strong. State v. Hedges, 177 Ind. 589 (590), 98 N. E. 417; Ex parte Heffren, 27 Ind. 87; Ex parte Jones et al., 55 Ind. 176; Ex parte Kendall et al., 100 Ind. 599; Ex parte Richards, 102 Ind. 260, 1 N. E. 639.
[3] The rule is that the applicant must introduce the evidence of witnesses indicated by the indictment, and he must also introduce such witness as the state indicates it does rely on. State v. Hedges, supra. In appellant's brief it is stated that “upon the trial of the cause attorneys for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial