Pocker v. State of Indiana
| Decision Date | 03 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | 25,000 |
| Parties | Pocker v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 28, 1926.
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Supreme Court will not reverse judgment of conviction where there was evidence from which inference of guilt might reasonably be drawn, though there was evidence to the contrary.---The Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment of conviction where there was evidence from which an inference of guilt might reasonably have been drawn, although there was other evidence to the Contrary. p. 600.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.---Party objecting to evidence, or moving to strike it out, must state specific grounds of objection, and no others will be considered on appeal.---A party objecting to the admission of evidence, or moving to strike it out must state to the trial court the specific ground or grounds of objection relied on, and only such objections are available on appeal as were there made and ought to have been sustained. p. 600.
3. CRIMINAL LAW.---Admission of testimony held harmless when defendant testified to the same facts.---The admission of testimony that a witness made a certain inquiry was not available error on appeal when the defendant testified to all the facts which such witness said he learned by making such inquiry. p. 601.
4. CRIMINAL LAW.---Exclusion of deed to land in another section from defendant's farm held not error because not relevant.---In a prosecution for unlawfully possessing a still, the exclusion of a deed to land in a certain section was not error where defendant's farm was in another section and no evidence was offered to show that any line of the land first referred to constituted a boundary of defendant's lands, as it would not be relevant. p. 602.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Refusal to give requested instruction not error when covered by court's instruction.---The refusal to give a requested instruction is not error when the court's instructions covered all of the requested instruction that was proper. p. 602.
6. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.---Newly-discovered evidence held not inconsistent with possession of still by defendant.---In a prosecution for unlawfully having possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, no error was committed in overruling a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, when such evidence merely showed that, on the day before the seizure of the still, other persons had brought grain to the point where the still was found, as it would not be inconsistent with possession of the still by the defendant. p. 602.
From Harrison Circuit Court; Thomas J. Wilson, Judge.
Hugo Pocker was convicted of having possession of still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank Self and Clyde R. Lottick, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General and Edward J. Lennon, Jr. Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
OPINION
the defendant below, was charged by affidavit with unlawfully having in his possession and under his control a certain still and distilling apparatus for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the laws of this state, at Harrison county, Indiana, on November 22, 1924. Waiving arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty as charged and stating his age, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year nor more than five years. Overruling his motion for a new trial is assigned as error, under which he specifies that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, that the court erred in admitting certain evidence and in excluding certain other evidence, and that it erred in refusing to give an instruction tendered by the defendant, and in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.
There was evidence from which an inference might reasonably be drawn that defendant had possession of a still for the purpose charged, and this court cannot reverse the judgment on the weight of other evidence to the contrary.
Appellant complains of the admission of three different items of evidence given by witnesses in answer to as many questions. But in two instances the record does not show that the defendant or his attorney stated any ground of objection whatever at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial