State v. Gilbert, No. 30600

Docket NºNo. 30600
Citation219 N.E.2d 892, 247 Ind. 544
Case DateSeptember 23, 1966
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 892

219 N.E.2d 892
247 Ind. 544
STATE of Indiana, Appellant,
v.
Elree GILBERT, Appellee.
No. 30600.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 23, 1966.

[247 IND 545] John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Noble R. Pearcy, Pros. Atty., Donald L. Adams, Deputy Pros. Atty., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Owen M. Mullin, Indianapolis, for appellee.

MYERS, Judge.

This was a criminal action commenced by the State, appellant herein, against Elree Gilbert, appellee, wherein appellee was charged by affidavit with registering a motor vehicle without submitting a valid receipt from the Treasurer of Marion County, Indiana, showing that all personal property and poll taxes had been paid in full, or that he was not subject to tax or assessment, as required by the law of the State of Indiana. The cause was submitted for trial

Page 893

before Hon. John C. Christ, Judge of Municipal Court, Room No. 5, Marion County, and evidence was heard. A written motion for discharge was filed by appellee after he had rested without submitting evidence on his own behalf. This motion urged a finding of not guilty for the reason that no valid or constitutional statute authorized the instant prosecution. The [247 IND 546] motion was sustained by the trial court and appellee was found not guilty with subsequent judgment entered thereon. No motion for new trial was filed. The State filed its praecipe with the Marion County Clerk requesting a complete transcript of the entire record for use on appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana. However, no bill of exceptions concerning the evidence was submitted and received as part of the record herein. The sole question to be decided as stated by the trial court is whether or not the statute upon which the charge was based is constitutional. Appellant admits that its assignment of errors raises only this question. So, this court will consider only the question of law presented jointly herein.

This appeal comes to us by virtue of Burns' Ind.Stat., § 9--2304, Fourth, 1956 Replacement, which permits appeals to be taken upon a question reserved by the State. Our decision on this matter will have no effect upon the finding and judgment of discharge by the trial court, but will only attempt to clarify the question of law presented by the State based upon that finding and judgment.

The Judge of the trial court wrote an explanatory opinion on the matters involved in his decision which was incorporated in the record. Such an opinion is not usually considered by an appellate tribunal. Hinshaw v. Security Trust Co. (1911), 48 Ind.App. 351, 356, 93 N.E. 567; Cooley v. Kelley (1913), 52 Ind.App. 687, 693, 96 N.E. 638, 98 N.E. 653. It may be considered to determine the meaning and effect of the trial court's decision. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Ft. Wayne U. Ry. Co. (1953), 232 Ind. 82, 111 N.E.2d 719; Gavin v. Miller (1944), 222 Ind. 459, 54 N.E.2d 277. However, here, the State has more or less taken recognition of the propositions submitted by the trial court and attempted to answer them in the Argument section of its brief. We shall not set forth the trial Judge's opinion, but only the arguments presented by the State in its brief opposing the points and propositions presented therein and answered by appellee in his brief.

[247 IND 547] The matter involved in this case is Section 15 of the Act of the 1961 General Assembly, being Chapter 345, Page 1071; Burns' Ind.Stat., § 47--2602b, 1965 Replacement. The Act in general provided for a tax of two per cent on the value of motor vehicles and mobile homes in lieu of the ad valorem property tax. An action for declaratory judgment requesting injunctive relief was brought in Marion Superior Court, Room No. 3, which upheld the law as being constitutional and denied the plaintiffs relief. There was an appeal taken to this court which reversed the trial court with directions to enter a judgment for appellants. Wright v. Steers, Atty. General, et al. (1962), 242 Ind. 582, 179 N.E.2d 721. Rehearing denied 180 N.E.2d 539.

The principal ground for the court's decision was that the Act violated Art. 10, Sec. 1, of the Indiana State Constitution, which provides as follows:

'The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal, excepting such only for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes, as may be specially exempted by law.'

Section 15 of the Act (Acts of 1961, Chapter 345, Page 1071, supra) reads as follows:

'Any owner of a vehicle who registers such vehicle without paying the excise tax required by this act or who fails to

Page 894

provided proper evidence of payment of all personal property and poll taxes shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine in a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, CAYLOR-NICKEL
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court of Indiana
    • April 4, 1991
    ...559 (citing Allen County Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Ball Memorial Hosp. Ass'n (1969), 253 Ind. 179, 252 N.E.2d 424; State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892; Ervin v. Review Bd. of Indiana, Employment Sec. Div. (1977), Ind.App., 364 N.E.2d 1189; Abrams v. Legbandt (1974), 160 Ind......
  • Loza v. State, No. 3-573A55
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 1974
    ...objective of the rules of statutory construction is to determine and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892; Kirby v. Indiana Employment Security Board (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 225, 40 Ind.Dec. 10. When a court undertakes to ascer......
  • Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., No. 181S24
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 26, 1981
    ...County Dep't of Public Welfare v. Ball Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, (1969) 253 Ind. 179, 184-85, 252 N.E.2d 424, 427; State v. Gilbert, (1966) 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892, The clear intention of the legislature in section five was to limit the time within which product liability actions can be br......
  • Lasko v. State, No. 2-979A278
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 9, 1980
    ...172; Renfroe v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 519, 316 N.E.2d 405. They are to be construed against the State. State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892. See generally, 26 I.L.E., Statutes § 175. The object of this rule of interpretation is to establish a rule of certainty for the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, CAYLOR-NICKEL
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court of Indiana
    • April 4, 1991
    ...559 (citing Allen County Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Ball Memorial Hosp. Ass'n (1969), 253 Ind. 179, 252 N.E.2d 424; State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892; Ervin v. Review Bd. of Indiana, Employment Sec. Div. (1977), Ind.App., 364 N.E.2d 1189; Abrams v. Legbandt (1974), 160 Ind......
  • Loza v. State, No. 3-573A55
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 23, 1974
    ...objective of the rules of statutory construction is to determine and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892; Kirby v. Indiana Employment Security Board (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 225, 40 Ind.Dec. 10. When a court undertakes to ascer......
  • Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., No. 181S24
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 26, 1981
    ...County Dep't of Public Welfare v. Ball Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, (1969) 253 Ind. 179, 184-85, 252 N.E.2d 424, 427; State v. Gilbert, (1966) 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892, The clear intention of the legislature in section five was to limit the time within which product liability actions can be br......
  • Lasko v. State, No. 2-979A278
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 9, 1980
    ...172; Renfroe v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 519, 316 N.E.2d 405. They are to be construed against the State. State v. Gilbert (1966), 247 Ind. 544, 219 N.E.2d 892. See generally, 26 I.L.E., Statutes § 175. The object of this rule of interpretation is to establish a rule of certainty for the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT