Triggs v. State, 29353

Decision Date17 April 1958
Docket NumberNo. 29353,29353
Citation149 N.E.2d 545,238 Ind. 260
PartiesWilliam Brady TRIGGS, allas William Brady Trigg, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Nick G. Ricos, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellant and another person not involved in this appeal were charged by affidavit in two counts, Count One charging robbery under Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 6, p. 447, being § 10-4101, Burns' 1956 Replacement; and Count Two charging the commission of robbery while armed under Acts 1935, ch. 63, § 2, p. 159, being § 10-4735, Burns' 1956 Replacement.

Appellant was separately tried by jury, found guilty on both counts as charged, and sentenced on Count Two to the Indiana State Prison for a determinate period of 20 years.

Eight separate specifications compose the motion for new trial, the overruling of which is the sole error here assigned.

We will consider these specifications in the order in which they are discussed in appellant's brief.

First: Specifications 3 and 4 of the motion for a new trial involve the same question. They are consolidated for consideration here and are as follows:

'3. Error of law occuring at the trial in this, to wit that the Court permitted in evidence a picture of the defendant over the objection of the defendant at the time of the trial.

'4. Error of law occuring at the trial in this, to wit, court permitted the witness Surgon (spurgon [Spurgeon]) Davenport to answer certain questions asked by the prosecuting attorney concerning certain receipts allege to be the property of the defendant over the objection of the defendant at the trial in violation of the defendant['s] constitutional rights.'

Neither of these specifications is sufficient to present any question either to the trial court at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, or to this court on appeal.

The rule is well-settled in this State that,

'When error is predicated upon the admission or rejection of testimony, the motion for a new trial should set out the question and answer, if there was one, or the substance thereof. * * * The objection urged below should also be set forth, together with the ruling of the court with respect thereto, * * *. This is necessary for two good reasons: (1) that the trial court may be fully apprised of the alleged error so that it may have an opportunity to correct the ruling by granting the motion if it deems it proper to do so; and (2) that this court may be able to consider the matter on appeal without being burdened to search the record for grounds to reverse. First National Bank of Cambridge City v. Colter, 1878, 61 Ind. 153, 159; Greer v. State, 1929, 201 Ind. 386, 388, 168 N.E. 581; Eva v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 340, 344, 180 N.E. 183; Vaughn Building Co. v. State of Indiana, 1933, 97 Ind.App. 556, 558, 185 N.E. 656.' Brown v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 106, 108, 109, 23 N.E.2d 267, 268.

Where, as is the case here, the evidence admitted over objection was a newspaper article including a photograph of appellant, and certain written receipts, the motion for a new trial should contain either a copy or the substance thereof, the objection made thereto, and the ruling of the court thereon. Randolph v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 57, 67, 122 N.E.2d 860; Deming Hotel Co. v. Sisson, 1940, 216 Ind. 587, 592, 24 N.E.2d 912.

Appellant's attorney who prepared the motion for a new trial 1 failed to comply with any of the requirements of the rule as above stated, and no question is presented by either of these specifications for our consideration here.

Second: Appellant has consolidated specifications 2 and 5 in the argument section of his brief and we will so consider them here. These assert that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the affidavit and for dismissal. The ground relied upon to sustain these motions rests upon the following circumstances as recited in the motion to quash: That while defendant-appellant was at liberty on bail, awaiting his trial herein which was set for December 27, 1954, he was arrested on December 3, 1954, on a requisition warrant from the Governor of the State of Kentucky. On December 13, 1954, a hearing on this requisition was held in the office of the Governor of the State of Indiana, and the extradition of defendant-appellant approved. At the time of such approval defendant-appellant was in the custody and 'under the physical control of the State of Indiana'; and appellant asserts that a release of jurisdiction at that time (December 13, 1954) would operate as a waiver of any further jurisdiction of the State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Davis v. State, 30668
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 14, 1968
    ...and specifically set forth the questions, answers, objections and rulings of the court in regard thereto. See: Triggs v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 260, 149 N.E.2d 545; Brown v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 106, 23 N.E.2d 267. Furthermore, appellant in his confession admitted putting Hopkins in the b......
  • Lake State Trucking, Inc. v. New York Cent. R. Co., s. 20277
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 21, 1965
    ...new trial when there is [139 INDAPP 315] assigned error in the admission or exclusion of evidence. See e. g. Triggs, etc. v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 260, 262, 263, 149 N.E.2d 545; Blanton v. State (1953), 233 Ind. 51, 55, 115 N.E.2d 122, 116 N.E.2d 631; McKinley etc. et al. v. Overbay (1961)......
  • Gennaitte v. State, 30246
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 6, 1963
    ...the state's offer to introduce the exhibit or its substance into evidence nor appellant's objections thereto. Triggs, etc. v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 260, 149 N.E.2d 545. Finally, appellant asserts that the court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence appellant's confession an......
  • Schweigel v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 4, 1964
    ...There is no showing that any objection was made thereto and if objections were made, what the specifications were. Triggs, etc. v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 260, 149 N.E.2d 545; Hammond et al. v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 313, 164 N.E.2d 640. We come, therefore, to the consideration of whether or......
  • 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