Oelfke v. State
| Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 24,177 |
| Citation | 137 N.E. 553,192 Ind. 602 |
| Parties | Oelfke v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Allen Circuit Court; Sol A. Wood, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against George Oelfke. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
David E. Smith and William C. Geake, for appellant.
U. S Lesh, Attorney-General, and Connor D. Ross, for the state.
The appellant was convicted of embezzlement. After a motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered upon the verdict, appellant appealed and the only error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.
The motion for a new trial is not set out in appellant's brief nor the substance of it stated therein.
Appellant's brief, under the heading of "Points and Authorities," does not contain separately numbered propositions or points stated concisely and without argument under separate headings as required by Rule 22, clause 5, of the Supreme Court. The appellant merely setting forth a series of abstract propositions of law, without applying them, or any of them, to any specific ruling of the trial court.
The attorney-general, in appellee's brief, after pointing out the above defects in appellant's brief, contends that no question is presented to this court for review. No attempt has been made by the appellant to amend his brief. The contention of the attorney-general must be sustained.
When neither the motion for a new trial, nor the substance thereof, is set out in appellant's brief, all questions sought to be presented thereby are waived. State, ex rel. v. Birden, Trustee (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N.E. 865; Robbins v. Bank (1917), 186 Ind. 573, 117 N.E. 562; Pugh, Admr., v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 184 Ind. 350, 110 N.E. 193; Ewbank's Manual (2d ed.) § 182a; Solimeto v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 170, 122 N.E. 578.
Where, as in this case, appellant's brief fails to make clear what error is complained of and is in such condition that the question whether error was committed cannot be determined from it, the court on appeal will not search the record to find error. Wheeler v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 228, 122 N.E. 769; Barker v. State (1918), 188 Ind. 263, 120 N.E. 593; Dorsey v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 531, 100 N.E. 369; McCrocklin v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 254, 126 N.E. 678.
No question being presented for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
... ... support of the contention that the verdict is contrary to ... law, appellant states three abstract propositions of law, ... without any attempt being made to apply them to any specific ... point in the instant case. This is not sufficient to present ... any question. Oelfke v. State (1923), 192 ... Ind. 602, 137 N.E. 553 ... The ... next contention is that the court erred in permitting ... "Henry Boggess, Jesse Jones, Ferris Jay and others" ... to testify as to facts discovered and articles seized by them ... during a search of appellant's ... ...
-
Garner v. State, 28516.
...and request for a continuance set out, and therefore there is no question raised on appeal for review by this court. Oelfke v. State, 1923, 192 Ind. 602, 137 N.E. 553;Eva v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 340, 345, 180 N.E. 183. As another ground for new trial, the appellant alleged error in the ove......
- Davy v. State
-
Eva v. State
... ... sixth and seventh grounds for a new trial question the ... sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Inasmuch ... as appellant makes no attempt to set out the evidence or the ... substance thereof in his brief, he thereby waives any error, ... if any, presented thereby. Oelfke v. State ... (1923), 192 Ind. 602, 604, 137 N.E. 553, and cases there ... cited. Rule 22, fifth subdivision, of the Supreme Court ... provides that: "If the insufficiency of the evidence to ... sustain the verdict or finding in fact or law is assigned, ... the statement shall contain ... ...