Palmer v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 24,994 |
| Citation | 152 N.E. 607,198 Ind. 73 |
| Parties | Palmer v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Time defendant was confined in state prison on another charge not considered in computing period of his detention without trial.---On a motion to be discharged from custody under the provisions of 2251 Burns 1926, 2090 Burns 1914, the time that defendant was confined in the state prison under process of, the court of another county on another charge is not to be considered in computing the period of his detention without trial which requires his discharge. p. 75.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.---Motion to be discharged from custody because of time served on another charge in another county properly overruled.---A motion to be discharged from custody under the provisions of 2251 Burns 1926, 2090 Burns 1914, was properly overruled where it was not shown that the defendant had been detained in jail, without trial, on the indictment on which he was then confined in jail, but it was shown that he had been confined on an indictment found by another court in another county. p. 75.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.---Terms of court intervening between time of indictment and arrest not considered in determining whether accused has been detained in jail without trial for statutory period.---Where accused was not arrested until some time during the second term of court following his indictment, neither that term nor the preceding term could be counted in determining whether he had been continuously detained in jail without trial for a period embracing more than two terms after his arrest and commitment thereon within the meaning of 2251 Burns 1926, 2090 Burns 1914, regardless of his confinement in jail in another county on another charge before such arrest. p. 75.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.---Failure of verdict to fix punishment and overruling motion for venire de novo harmless error on conviction for automobile banditry.---Where the court imposed the shortest sentence which the jury could have fixed as the punishment for "automobile banditry" as defined in 2548 Burns 1926 (Acts 1921 p. 91), the defendant was not harmed by the failure of the verdict to fix the punishment nor by the action of the court in overruling his motion for a venire de novo. p. 77.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Verdict, of 'guilty of "automobile banditry" held sufficient.---A verdict of guilty of "automobile banditry" as defined in 2548 Burns 1926 (Acts 1921 p. 91) necessarily found that the defendant should be imprisoned for not less than the minimum term prescribed by the act, and hence was not so defective or uncertain as to preclude the entry of judgment thereon. p. 77.
6. CRIMINAL LAW.---When motion for venire de novo will be sustained.---A motion for a venire de novo will not be sustained unless the verdict is so defective and uncertain on its face that no judgment whatever can be pronounced thereon p. 77.
7. CRIMINAL LAW.---Instructions in a criminal case can only be brought into the record by incorporating them in a bill of exceptions.---In a criminal case, the instructions can only be brought into the record by incorporating them in a bill of exceptions, and if they are not, no question as to any error in giving or refusing instructions is presented on appeal. p 78.
8. CRIMINAL LAW.---Requirements necessary to obtain review of admission of incompetent evidence.---Where appellant's brief failed to show that objection was made and exception reserved to the admission of evidence, that the action of the court was specified as a ground for a new trial, and that an exception was reserved on overruling the motion, no question as to the admission of the evidence is presented for review on appeal. p. 78.
9. CRIMINAL LAW.---Requirements necessary to review of exclusion of evidence on appeal.---Where appellant's brief fails to show that his attorneys made a proper offer to prove the facts proposed to be proved by evidence excluded that they reserved an exception to its exclusion, and that it was specified as a reason for a new trial and an exception was reserved when his motion for a new trial was overruled no question as to such exclusion is presented for review on appeal. p. 78.
From Owen Circuit Court; Homer Elliott, Special Judge.
Harry Palmer was convicted of "automobile banditry," and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Slinkard & Slinkard, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General George J. Muller, Deputy Attorney-General and Alvan W. Boyd, for the State.
An indictment was returned on July 5, 1924, charging that appellant and certain other persons had burglarized a bank at Spencer, Indiana, while keeping an automobile in waiting by the use of which they escaped, in violation of ch. 32, Acts 1921 p. 91, defining automobile banditry. A warrant for his arrest was returned on March 12, 1925, indorsed with a statement by the sheriff that it came to hand on January 1, 1925, and was served as commanded by arresting appellant at the Michigan City State Prison, and that the sheriff then had his body in the Owen county jail.
On the first day of the March term of court, being March 16, 1925 appellant filed a motion asking that he be discharged, for the alleged reason that at the time this indictment was returned into the circuit court of Owen county, the defendant was in jail in Vigo county, Indiana, under conviction by the Vigo Circuit Court of having received stolen goods, and that nineteen days later he was taken by the sheriff of Vigo county to the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial