Stephenson v. State, No. 25310.

Docket NºNo. 25310.
Citation205 Ind. 141, 186 N.E. 293
Case DateJune 27, 1933
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

205 Ind. 141
186 N.E. 293

STEPHENSON
v.
STATE.

No. 25310.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 27, 1933.


Original petition by David C. Stephenson, opposed by the State of Indiana, for a writ of error coram nobis.

Petition dismissed.

[186 N.E. 294]


L. D. Hill and Blankenbaker & Hall, all of Terre Haute, for appellant.

James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and V. Ed. Funk and Joseph W. Hutchinson, both of Indianapolis, for the State.

[186 N.E. 295]


PER CURIAM.

This is an original petition in this court for a writ of error coram nobis.

The petitioner was charged and convicted of murder, and upon appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. Stephenson v. State, 179 N. E. 633.

Jurisdiction to grant writs of error coram nobis lies in the court that rendered the judgment. Partlow v. State, 191 Ind. 657, 134 N. E. 483.

It has been said that after appeal and decision of a cause by this court, the judgment is the judgment of this court, but we cannot agree with this proposition. A common-law appeal brought the whole case up to the appellate tribunal for re-examination on the merits as to both law and facts, and for decision as though no decree had ever been rendered. Upon decision of the case by the Appellate Court upon such an appeal, the judgment, of course, became the judgment of the Appellate Court.

A writ of error at common law is a method of bringing cases to an Appellate Court for review of supposed errors of law committed by the trial court. The case is not open for re-examination upon the whole merits, but every controverted question of fact is excluded from consideration, and the Appellate Court is confined to reviewing the rulings of the inferior court upon questions of law.

The statutory appeal to this court is in the nature of a common-law writ of error, and brings the record to this court for a review of assigned errors of law committed at the trial and apparent upon the record. We are not concerned with controverted questions of fact. If the judgment is affirmed, it stands and is still the judgment of the lower court. If it is modified or reversed, the mandate of this court directs the lower court to modify its judgment or set it aside and grant a new trial, in which case another judgment results, but the final judgment is the judgment of the trial court and not of this court.

The effect of the decision of an appealed case upon the judgment below is the same in criminal and civil cases, and a decision by the Appellate Court has the same effect as a decision by this court. It is the law that a court of general jurisdiction may entertain an action to enjoin the operation of a judgment at law after an appeal and affirmance of the judgment by the Appellate Court. Hitt v. Carr, 77 Ind. App. 488, 130 N. E. 1.

If it were true that after affirmance the judgment becomes the judgment of the Appellate Court, it is clear that a court of inferior jurisdiction cannot enjoin its operation.

Because any change or modification of the record pending an appeal would interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of this court, the jurisdiction of the trial court to act in the case is suspended pending the appeal, but upon leave being granted by this court it may entertain such a petition pending the appeal, and, if the petition is denied, the record of the proceeding may be certified to this court as part of the appeal, and, if the petition is granted and the facts certified to this court, the appeal will be dismissed and the judgment may be then vacated and a new trial had.

“The writ of error coram nobis is not intended to authorize any court to review and revise its opinions; but only to enable it to recall some adjudication, made while some fact existed which if before the court would have prevented the rendition of the judgment, and which without any fault or negligence of the party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • Stroud v. State, No. 71S00-0011-DP-00642.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 25, 2004
    ...after the disputed testimony, however, any error in the admission of Sergeant Nowicki's testimony was harmless. Stephenson v. State, 205 Ind. 141, 215-16, 179 N.E. 633, 667 (1932) (upholding as harmless error the admission of a dying declaration even though a proper foundation had not been ......
  • Watts v. State, No. 28695
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1950
    ...the admissibility of evidence, and was not a comment on the evidence introduced. As was stated, in the case of Stephenson v. State, 1933, 205 Ind. 141, 165, 179 N.E. 633, 641, 186 N.E. 293: 'We are persuaded that the jury fully understood that the court was ruling on the admissibility of ev......
  • Hendricks v. State, No. A-12195
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 9, 1956
    ...S.Ct. 647, 93 L.Ed. 1088; Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 315; Ex parte Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709, 177 P.2d 918; Stephenson v. State, 205 Ind. 141, 179 N.E. 633, and 186 N.E. 293; State ex rel. Emmert v. Gentry, 223 Ind. 535, 62 N.E.2d 860, 161 A.L.R. 532; Coram Nobis, Common Law, Feder......
  • State ex rel. Lake v. Bain, No. 28400.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 3, 1948
    ...of exceptions at the expense of the taxpayers of Marion County as prayed in his petition.--------Notes: 1. In Stephenson v. State, 1933, 205 Ind. 141, 179 N.E. 633,186 N.E. 293, it was held that the Supreme Court of Indiana has no jurisdiction to entertain an original petition for writ of e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 cases
  • Stroud v. State, No. 71S00-0011-DP-00642.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 25, 2004
    ...after the disputed testimony, however, any error in the admission of Sergeant Nowicki's testimony was harmless. Stephenson v. State, 205 Ind. 141, 215-16, 179 N.E. 633, 667 (1932) (upholding as harmless error the admission of a dying declaration even though a proper foundation had not been ......
  • Watts v. State, No. 28695
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1950
    ...the admissibility of evidence, and was not a comment on the evidence introduced. As was stated, in the case of Stephenson v. State, 1933, 205 Ind. 141, 165, 179 N.E. 633, 641, 186 N.E. 293: 'We are persuaded that the jury fully understood that the court was ruling on the admissibility of ev......
  • Hendricks v. State, No. A-12195
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 9, 1956
    ...S.Ct. 647, 93 L.Ed. 1088; Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 315; Ex parte Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709, 177 P.2d 918; Stephenson v. State, 205 Ind. 141, 179 N.E. 633, and 186 N.E. 293; State ex rel. Emmert v. Gentry, 223 Ind. 535, 62 N.E.2d 860, 161 A.L.R. 532; Coram Nobis, Common Law, Feder......
  • State ex rel. Lake v. Bain, No. 28400.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 3, 1948
    ...of exceptions at the expense of the taxpayers of Marion County as prayed in his petition.--------Notes: 1. In Stephenson v. State, 1933, 205 Ind. 141, 179 N.E. 633,186 N.E. 293, it was held that the Supreme Court of Indiana has no jurisdiction to entertain an original petition for writ of e......
  • 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