Morlan v. State, 880S352
| Decision Date | 23 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 880S352,880S352 |
| Citation | 429 N.E.2d 240 |
| Parties | Jack L. MORLAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
J. Patrick Smith, LaPorte, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. Quigley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of Attempted Murder and sentenced to a thirty (30) year term of imprisonment.
Appellant raises four issues concerning an allegedly prejudiced and improperly impaneled juror. However, there is nothing in this record to show there was a timely objection to this alleged impropriety in the trial court. We, therefore, deem the four issues now presented in this appeal to be waived.
Appellant attempts to explain his failure to object at the trial level by affidavits filed in this cause. The affidavits state appellant knew juror Borelli was a Starke County Commissioner but was unaware of the meaning of "commissioner." After the case had been submitted to the jury for its deliberation, appellant's companion told appellant and his counsel, juror Borelli was an employee of Starke County. There is a discrepancy in appellant's affidavit and the affidavit of his defense counsel as to the exact time of the information. Defense counsel states in his affidavit he was informed during the lunch hour on March 10, 1980. The motion for mistrial and for a new trial was filed by counsel on March 26, 1980, sixteen (16) days following the revelation and the return of the jury's verdict.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling. Drollinger v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1228. If previous to the verdict the defendant or his counsel became aware of grounds for challenging a juror for cause and failed to promptly inform the court and challenge the juror, the issue would be considered waived. Barnes v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 320, 330 N.E.2d 743. We therefore hold issues emanating from this allegation of error to be waived.
Although appellant claims the verdict is contrary to law, he completely fails to argue the issue in his brief. Consequently, this issue is not subject to appellate review. Wade v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 456; Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7).
The trial court is affirmed.
All Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...brief stated he will not brief the issue. This alone constitutes a waiver of the issue under Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7). See, Morlan v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 240. Appellant also concedes the issue in this case falls squarely within our holding in Johnson v. State, (1980) Ind., 399 N.E.......
-
Morlan v. State, 1083S364
...and he received a sentence of thirty years. A jury tried the case. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in Morlan v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 240. He raises four issues: (1) whether trial court denied him a fair trial in submitting final instructions # 1 and # 7 to the ......
-
Marbley v. State
...action nor in any way raise this contention before the trial court. This issue therefore was waived by Appellant. See Morlan v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 240. V Appellant filed a motion with the trial court asking that evidence of Appellant's polygraph examination be admitted into evid......
-
Deneal v. State
...are not discussed in the Argument section of his brief. These unargued issues are deemed waived. Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7); Morlan v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 240; Lock v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 315, 403 N.E.2d 1360. Appellant first claims that there was insufficient evidence to support ......