Parker v. State

• Decision Date: 10 October 1916
• Docket Number: No. 9467.,9467.
• Citation: 63 Ind.App. 671,113 N.E. 763
• Parties: PARKER v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

63 Ind.App. 671

113 N.E. 763

PARKER

v.STATE.

No. 9467.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Oct. 10, 1916.

Appeal from Juvenile Court, Marion County; Frank J. Lahr, Judge.

Cecil Parker was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a girl under 16, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.

189See, also, 111 N. E. 631.

Donald S. Morris, of Indianapolis, for appellant. Evan B. Stotsenburg, Atty. Gen., and Omer S. Jackson and Wilbur T. Gruber, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

IBACH, J.

Appellant was convicted in the juvenile court of Marion county for contributing to the delinquency of a girl under the age of 16 years. An appeal having been prayed to this court, the judge of the juvenile court, as directed by section 1635, Burns 1914, certified the facts of the case in the form of a special finding.

For the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to set out these findings in full. It is sufficient to say that they show the grossest misconduct on the part of appellant. They show that by the most deceptive and basest practices he induced and persuaded -, a girl then under the age of 16 years, on different days during the month of August, 1915, to accompany him to the Elite Hotel in the city of Indianapolis and there committed acts of the most revolting nature with the girl and persuaded her to have illicit sexual intercourse with him, all of which of necessity contributed to her delinquency.

[1][2] Appellant's assignment of errors contains a number of specifications, but we are precluded from considering any except the first, because the only assignment of error allowed by the statute regulating such appeals is, “that the decision of the [juvenile] court is contrary to law.” Section 1635, Burns 1914. This statute provides, “an assignment of error that the decision of the juvenile court is contrary to law,” shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the judgment and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings. See, also, Murphy v. State, 111 N. E. 806. This statute also provides:

“In case the party appealing questions the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the findings thus made by the court, such evidence shall be incorporated in a bill of exceptions filed in said juvenile court and made a part of the record.”

This the appellant has failed to do, and since the evidence is not in the record no question concerning the same can be considered on appeal. Section 1635, Burns 1914; Beard v. State, 54 Ind. 413;Enners v. State, 47 Ind. 126;Walbert v. State, 17 Ind. App. 350, 353, 46 N. E. 827.

[3] The court found by specifications numbered 8 and 9 of his special findings, “that the appellant did cause and encourage - to commit an act of delinquency on or about August 14, 1915, at or about 2 p. m. of that day, and again on or about Saturday, August 21, 1915, at about 2 o'clock p. m. The last date is the one mentioned in the affidavit filed in the cause on September 8, 1915.

A...