Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 1900 |
| Citation | 56 N.E. 19,154 Ind. 107 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Warren county; William B. Reed, Special Judge.
James Smith was convicted of aiding an escape, and he appeals. Affirmed.Lindley & Lewis, for appellant. Wm. L. Taylor, Atty. Gen., James W. Brissey, and Livengood & Livengood, for the State.
Appellant was convicted, under section 2116, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (section 2029, Rev. St. 1881; Id., Horner's Rev. St. 1897), of aiding a prisoner to escape. The errors assigned challenge (1) the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion to quash the affidavit and information, and (2) the overruling of his motion for a new trial. No infirmity in the affidavit and information is pointed out, and the first assignment is, therefore, waived, under the often-repeated rule of this court. Dunn v. Dunn, 149 Ind. 424, 49 N. E. 346. As a cause for a new trial it is urged that the court erred in giving of its own motion instruction No. 3. The instructions are not in the record. We find copied into the record, but not in a bill of exceptions, what purports to be a set of instructions; but there appear no prefatory recitals of the clerk, no exceptions, no signature of court or attorney, nor any other evidence that they were the instructions given to the jury. Besides, it is firmly settled by a long line of decisions that instructions in a criminal case can only be brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. Bealer v. State, 150 Ind. 390, 50 N. E. 302, and cases cited. The only other question argued is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence is in sharp conflict. We have no power to weigh it, and hence cannot disturb the judgment. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donovan v. State
...because neither the instructions, nor the evidence, have been brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. Citing Smith v. State, 154 Ind. 107, 56 N. E. 19;Utterback v. State, 153 Ind. 545, 549, 55 N. E. 420;Miller v. State, 165 Ind. 566, 568, 76 N. E. 245, and cases cited; Stilwell v. ......
-
Donovan v. The State
... ... evidence. The Attorney-General insists that none of said ... questions can be determined by this court, because neither ... the evidence nor the instructions have been brought into the ... record by ... [83 N.E. 747] ... a bill of exceptions. Citing Smith v. State ... (1900), 154 Ind. 107, 56 N.E. 19; Utterback v ... State (1899), 153 Ind. 545, 549, 55 N.E. 420; ... Miller v. State (1905), 165 Ind. 566, 568, ... 76 N.E. 245, and cases cited; Stillwell v ... State (1900), 155 Ind. 552, 58 N.E. 709; ... Bealer v. State (1898), 150 Ind. 390, 50 ... ...
-
Miller v. State
... ... Instructions given or refused in a criminal case can only be ... made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions ... Leverich v. State (1886), 105 Ind. 277, ... 278, 4 N.E. 852; Stillwell v. State (1900), ... 155 Ind. 552, 58 N.E. 709; Smith v. State ... (1900), 154 Ind. 107, 56 N.E. 19. As this has not been done ... in this [165 Ind. 569] case, no question in regard to the ... refusal of the court to give said instruction is presented by ... the record ... It is ... next insisted by appellant that the court ... ...
-
Miller v. State
...by a bill of exceptions. Leverich v. State, 105 Ind. 277, 278, 4 N. E. 852;Stillwell v. State, 155 Ind. 552, 58 N. E. 709;Smith v. State, 154 Ind. 107, 56 N. E. 19. As this has not been done in this case, no question in regard to the refusal of the court to give said instruction is presente......