McLaughlin v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1934 |
| Docket Number | 26172 |
| Citation | 192 N.E. 753,207 Ind. 484 |
| Parties | McLAUGHLIN v. STATE |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
[Rehearing denied February 18, 1935.]
1. CRIMINAL LAW---Judgment---Time to Pronounce Judgment.---Judgment should be pronounced without delay after a finding or verdict of guilty unless sufficient cause appears for delay. p. 486.
2. CRIMINAL LAW---Judgment---Time to Pronounce Judgment---Cause for Delay.---There can be no error in delaying pronouncement of judgment where the defendant invites or causes the delay p. 486.
3. CRIMINAL LAW---Appeal---Review---Parties Entitled to Allege Error---Invited Error.---Where pronouncement of judgment was delayed 16 months after a verdict of guilty because of defendant's request to file briefs on his motion for new trial, the delay was invited by defendant and did not constitute available error. p. 486.
Virgil McLaughlin was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still and he appealed. Affirmed.
David R. Wilkinson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Philip Lutz, Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. Hanna, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This was a prosecution by the state of Indiana against the appellant, Virgil McLaughlin, upon an affidavit charging appellant with the unlawful possession of a still and distilling apparatus.
The appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. There was a jury trial, and he was found guilty on June 19, 1930, and judgment was rendered on October 30, 1931, sentencing appellant to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one nor more than five years and a fine of $ 100.
Appellant filed a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment which was overruled, and an exception was taken. Appellant contends that the court lost jurisdiction of the case, because of the unreasonable delay in pronouncing judgment, and therefore the judgment is void.
The appellant assigns six reasons for reversal; the first being that the court erred in rendering judgment in this cause on October 30, 1931, and the second being that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to set aside and vacate the judgment in this cause. The other four reasons allege that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion to strike out certain affidavits filed by the state, and in refusing to strike out the objections or answer of the state to the motion to vacate the judgment.
There are two questions presented in this case for this court to decide. The first is whether or not the court that tried this cause, the Delaware circuit court, lost jurisdiction over the appellant prior to the date of the judgment, October 30 1931, by reason of the lapse of time between the verdict of the jury and the judgment. The second question is whether or not the trial court properly admitted the state's written objections to appellant's motion to set aside and vacate the judgment, and the affidavits and oral evidence in support of the state's objections.
The record shows that the verdict of the jury, finding the defendant guilty, was returned on June 19, 1930, and that judgment was rendered upon the verdict on October 30, 1931 more than sixteen months after the verdict of guilty was returned. The motion for a new trial was filed on July 17, 1930, and was overruled on October 30, 1931, the same day judgment was entered.
It is the contention of the appellant that the trial court lost jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in this case because of the unreasonable delay and there being no justifiable excuse for the delay.
Section 2333, Burns' Ann. St. 1926, provides: 'After a finding or verdict of guilty against the defendant, if a new trial be not granted, or the judgment be not arrested, the court must pronounce judgment.'
Section 2338, Burns' Ann. St. 1926, provides: 'If no sufficient cause be alleged or appear to the court why judgment should not be pronounced, it shall thereupon be recorded.'
Unless there was a justifiable excuse for the delay in rendering judgment, the court lost jurisdiction to render the same. Does the record in the instant case show a justifiable cause for the delay? The appellee contends that the delay was...
To continue reading
Request your trial