Waggoner v. State, s. 28511-28513.

Citation85 N.E.2d 642,227 Ind. 269
Decision Date06 May 1949
Docket NumberNos. 28511-28513.,s. 28511-28513.
PartiesWAGGONER v. STATE (three cases).
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

227 Ind. 269
85 N.E.2d 642

WAGGONER
v.
STATE (three cases).

Nos. 28511-28513.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 6, 1949.


Hazel Waggoner was convicted of malicious trespass, disorderly conduct, and trespass, and she appeals. On the State's motions to dismiss the appeals.

Judgments affirmed.

[85 N.E.2d 642]

Appeal from Porter Circuit Court; Walter M. Crissman, Judge.
Edward M. Sutton, of Gary, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., and Charles F. O'Connor and Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.


EMMERT, Judge.

These are appeals from separate judgments convicting the appellant of malicious trespass in No. 28511, disorderly conduct in No. 28512, and trespass in No. 28513. The three cases were tried at the same time by the same jury, which returned verdicts of guilty and assessed the punishment. Appellant's three briefs are substantially the same so that each appeal may be decided by one opinion. The issues presented for our consideration arise upon the State's separate motions to dismiss the appeals.

The error assigned in each appeal is the overruling of the motion for new trial, which in each case charged the insufficiency of the evidence and misconduct

[85 N.E.2d 643]

of the prosecuting attorney. There is no statement as to wherein the prosecuting attorney was guilty of any misconduct, nor is any ruling of the court in connection therewith set out as error. Hill v. State, 1908, 169 Ind. 561, 83 N.E. 243, holds such omission waives the alleged error.

There is no condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form in any brief. ‘If the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding of fact or law is assigned, the statement shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely. * * *’ Rule 2-17(e). Clause (h) of the same rule provides that ‘Errors assigned and not treated as herein directed shall be deemed to be waived.’ This court has consistently held that such a failure presents no question as to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Golden Guernsey Farms, Inc., v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 606, 63 N.E.2d 699;De La Tour v. State, 1929, 201 Ind. 14, 165 N.E. 753;Grose v. State, 1925, 197 Ind. 331, 149 N.E. 722;Earl v. State, 1926, 197 Ind. 703, 151 N.E. 3;Fronczak v. State, 1925, 197 Ind. 48, 149 N.E. 725;Hunt v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 406, 409, 133 N.E. 8;Ogle v. State, 1912, 178 Ind. 672, 100 N.E. 5;Carmody v. State, 1912, 178 Ind. 158, 98 N.E. 870.

Nor do any of appellant's briefs comply with clause (f) of Rule 2-17, which requires:

‘The briefs shall contain under the heading, ‘Propositions, Points and Authorities,’ a copy of each assigned error relied on, designated by number as in the original assignment of error, and in case the error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, then the causes relied upon shall be numbered as in the motion. Each assignment shall be supported by separately numbered propositions, concisely stating the basis of the objection to the ruling complained of. Each proposition shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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