Sutton v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29895,29895 |
| Citation | 166 N.E.2d 651,240 Ind. 512 |
| Parties | Flinora SUTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Crowdus, Patrick E. Chavis, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Givan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for the manslaughter of her husband and after a trial by jury, was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony. She was sentenced to the Indiana Women's Prison for a period of one to ten years.
On this appeal the only error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial.
Appellee (The State) has filed motion to dismiss or affirm asserting that the verdict was returned on July 29, 1959, but that the motion for new trial was not filed until 37 days thereafter on September 4, 1959, which was too late under Burns' § 9-1903 (being Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 282, p. 584), providing:
'The motion for a new trial * * * must be filed within thirty days from the date of the verdict or finding;' and further that '* * * the motion must be filed in open court, if the court be then in session; otherwise it shall be filed with the clerk of the court.'
The motion for new trial did not set forth any valid reason or excuse for not complying with the statute (See Walker, alias Walters v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 552, 82 N.E.2d 245; Haley v. State of Indiana, 1956, 235 Ind. 333, 133 N.E.2d 565), and since under the above statute for such a motion to be considered by this court, it must have been filed not more than 30 days after the verdict or finding, no question is before us for decision on this appeal. See Grecu v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 464, 120 N.E.2d 179; Walker, alias Walters v. State, 1948, supra; Webster v. State, 1935, 209 Ind. 274, 198 N.E. 781.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langley v. State
...533, 233 N.E.2d 473; State ex rel. Macon v. Orange Circuit Court (1964), 245 Ind. 269, 195 N.E.2d 352, 198 N.E.2d 229; Sutton v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 512, 166 N.E.2d 651; Groover v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 271, 156 N.E.2d 307,--unless the defendant can show that the failure to do so was no......
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 568
...18, 1959. Blanton v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 142, 124 N.E.2d 382; Murley v. State, 1960, 240 Ind. 655, 168 N.E.2d 205; Sutton v. State, 1960, 240 Ind. 512, 166 N.E.2d 651.' Groover v. State, 239 Ind. 271, 156 N.E.2d 307 (1959); Sutton v. State, 240 Ind. 512, 166 N.E.2d 651 (1960); Murley, Con......
-
White v. Livengood
...confine our attention to the first Motion to Correct Errors. See Beck v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 237, 170 N.E.2d 661; Sutton v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 512, 166 N.E.2d 651; Lines v. Browning (1973), 156 Ind.App. 185, 295 N.E.2d 853; Matthew v. Gavit (1966), 138 Ind.App. 425, 214 N.E.2d Examin......
-
Capps v. State
...made on March 18, 1959. Blanton v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 142, 124 N.E.2d 382; Murley v. State, Ind.1960, 168 N.E.2d 205; Sutton v. State, Ind.1960, 166 N.E.2d 651. Therefore, the specifications of error in the motion for a new trial are not before us on The judgment is affirmed. LANDIS, C. ......