Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | 25,533 |
| Citation | 163 N.E. 595,200 Ind. 373 |
| Parties | Thompson v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion for New Trial---Specification as to Instructions.---A specification in a motion for a new trial that the court erred in giving "instructions numbered one to eleven, inclusive," could only be maintained by showing that all the instructions referred to were incorrect p. 374.
2. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion for New Trial---Instructions---Objections on Appeal---Waiver by Failing to Object.---Where the defendant specified in his motion for a new trial that the court erred in giving "instructions numbered one to eleven, inclusive," and, on appeal, questioned one of them only, there was, in effect, an admission that the others were unobjectionable and the specification in his motion for a new trial was not sustained. p. 375.
3. APPEAL---Waiver of Errors.---Errors assigned on appeal are waived when not stated in the "Points and Authorities" part of appellant's brief and supported by argument or authorities. p. 375.
4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS---Possession---Evidence Sufficient.---Testimony that defendant had "white whisky" in a tin cup in his hand and threw some of it out of a window when police officers were making a raid was sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. p. 375.
5. CRIMINAL LAW---Sufficiency of Evidence---Evidence Considered on Appeal.---In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the Supreme Court will consider only the evidence tending to support the verdict or finding, and will not consider any evidence contradicting the evidence supporting the verdict or finding. p. 375.
From Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.
Joshua Thompson was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Clarence E. Benadum, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Attorney-General, and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
OPINION
This is a prosecution against the appellant for a violation of § 4 of an act concerning intoxicating liquors, Acts 1925 p. 144, § 2717 Burns 1926.
The affidavit is in one count charging that the appellant had in his possession unlawfully on or about July 28, 1925, at Delaware County, in the State of Indiana, intoxicating liquor. A trial by jury resulted in conviction, and, after a motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict, this appeal was taken. The only error assigned is upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The appellant insists that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law and that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
The appellant, in his motion for a new trial, assigned as error, "that the court erred in giving of its own motion to the jury, instructions numbered one to eleven, inclusive." This assignment can only be maintained by showing that all the instructions are incorrect. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McCartney (1890), 121 Ind. 385, 23 N.E. 258, 23 N.E. 258, and cases there cited. See, also, Osburn v. State (1905), 164 Ind. 262, 267, 269, 73 N.E. 601.
The appellant has not attempted to point out any objections to any of the instructions given in the case except No. 5. This must be taken as an admission by appellant that no legal objection exists as to any of said instructions except instruction No. 5. Jones v. State (1903), 160 Ind. 537, 67 N.E. 264.
Errors assigned on appeal are waived when not stated in the "Points and Authorities" part of appellant's brief and supported by argument or authorities. Tow v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 253, 151 N.E. 697.
The only other contention of appellant in this appeal is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The appellant claims that the verdict is contrary to law...
To continue reading
Request your trial