Middaugh v. State
| Citation | 132 N.E. 678,191 Ind. 373 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 23,989 |
| Parties | Middaugh v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From Marion Criminal Court (51,739); Harry O. Chamberlin, Special Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Charles Middaugh. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Holmes & McCallister, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, for the state.
Appellant was convicted in the city court of Indianapolis of a violation of the Prohibition Law. Acts 1917 p. 15, § 8356a et seq. Burns' Supp. 1918. He appealed to the criminal court of Marion county, was tried by jury and again convicted.
He moved the court to withhold from the jury, on their retirement, "the affidavit, transcript of appeal and all other papers in this case," which motion the court sustained, "as to all papers except affidavit." He excepted to this ruling and on this predicates error.
It is proper to permit the jury to take with them the affidavit, or indictment, when they retire to deliberate on their verdict. Stout v. State (1883), 90 Ind. 1; Masterson v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 240, 43 N.E. 138. Provided, however, that there is nothing of a prejudicial character attached thereto, or indorsed thereon. McNulty v. State (1919), 189 Ind. 88, 125 N.E. 41, and authorities there cited; Staub v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 683, 125 N.E. 399, and authorities there cited.
It is not made to appear by the record in the instant case that there was anything attached to the affidavit, or indorsed thereon.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heier v. State
...for which this cause must be reversed. McNulty v. State, 189 Ind. 88, 125 N. E. 41;Staub v. State, 188 Ind. 683, 125 N. E. 399;Middaugh v. State, 132 N. E. 678, at the May term, 1921; Torphy v. State, 187 Ind. 73, 118 N. E. 355;Lotz v. Briggs, 50 Ind. 346, 348;State v. Tucker, 75 Conn. 201,......
-
Heier v. State
...... finding and judgment of the city court, to be taken by the. jury on their retirement to deliberate on their verdict. This. was error, for which this cause must be reversed. McNulty v. State (1919), 189 Ind. 88, 125. N.E. 41; Staub v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 683, 125 N.E. 399; Middaugh v. State. (1921), ante, 373, 132 N.E. 678; Torphy v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 73, 118 N.E. 355;. Lotz v. Briggs (1875), 50 Ind. 346, 348;. State v. Tucker (1902), 75 Conn. 201, 203,. 52 A. 741; Ogden v. United States (1902),. 112 F. 523, 526, 50 C. C. A. 380. . . Other. ......
-
United States v. Grady, 10145.
...injured for failure to detach the affidavit. The government also cites, without too much reliance, certain Indiana cases. Middaugh v. State, 191 Ind. 373, 132 N.E. 678; Berry v. State, 196 Ind. 258, 148 N.E. 143; Lee v. State, 213 Ind. 352, 12 N.E.2d 949. In those cases, the "affidavit" was......
-
Lee v. State
...to permit this to be done, provided there is nothing of a prejudicial character attached thereto, or indorsed thereon. Middaugh v. State, 191 Ind. 373, 132 N.E. 678; Masterson v. State, 144 Ind. 240, 43 N.E. The evidence shows that Williams and Terhune prior to December 8, 1936, had stolen ......