Poehler v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24416.,24416. |
| Citation | 194 Ind. 207,142 N.E. 410 |
| Parties | POEHLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; J. Collins, Judge.
Edward C. Poehler was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Jones & Updike and Thomas C. Whallon, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant appeals from the judgment against him, imposing a fine and imprisonment, upon a finding of guilty, for having violated the prohibition law, and assigns as error, the overruling of his motion for a new trial, for the reason that the finding of the court is contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence.
[1] Appellant's brief does not “contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly or concisely,” or any statement of the evidence whatever; and his brief does not contain any points in support of the error assigned (Supreme Court rule 22, cl. 5). Appellant's entire brief, as summed up in its final paragraph, is addressed to the proposition that the liquor which was introduced in evidence, as well as testimony of the officers in relation thereto, was procured and obtained in the execution of an alleged invalid search warrant. It is clear that the causes for the new trial do not present the question discussed by the brief. Neither does the brief disclose that objection was made upon the trial to the introduction of the evidence. In order to present upon appeal the question of the introduction of incompetent evidence at the trial, the alleged error of the trial court in excluding or admitting the evidence must be presented to the trial court by motion for a new trial. Section 2158, cl. 7, Burns' 1914.
[2] The office of the motion for a new trial is to present to the trial court alleged errors of law committed in the trial, and only such alleged errors as were thus presented to the trial court can be available upon appeal. Hougland et al. v. State, 43 Ind. 537;Rosenbaum et al. v. McThomas, 34 Ind. 331;State ex rel. Biddinger v. Manly, 15 Ind. 8; 3 Corpus Juris, § 881, p. 976.
Unless the motion for a new trial assigns rulings on the evidence as error, such alleged error will not be considered on appeal. Brunaugh v. State, 173 Ind. 483, 90 N. E. 1019;Simplex, etc., Appliance Co. v. Western, etc., Belting Co., 173 Ind. 1, 8, 88 N. E. 682.
The errors assigned do...
To continue reading
Request your trial