Watt v. State, 31084
| Decision Date | 05 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 31084,31084 |
| Citation | 234 N.E.2d 471,249 Ind. 674 |
| Parties | Harold Morris WATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Paul Vertesch, James B. Davison, Richmond, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Charles J. Deiter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The appellant herein is appealing from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Wayne County of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Prosecution was commenced in the City Court of Richmond, Indiana, on the basis of an Indiana Uniform Traffic Ticket, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 47--2326. Upon trial appellant was found guilty of the above stated offense. No formal affidavit or indictment was ever issued on this count. The only formal affidavit filed was one for public intoxication, and the City Court disposed of this count by a finding of not guilty.
Thereafter appeal was taken to the Wayne Circuit Court for a trial de novo. Appellant had filed a motion to quash the charge in the City Court and refiled the motion to quash in the Circuit Court. Both courts treated the Uniform Traffic Ticket as a proper affidavit and overruled the motion. Upon appellant's entering a plea of not guilty, trial was had by jury. The trial resulted in the jury finding appellant guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon this verdict the court entered judgment fining appellant $250 plus costs and recommending suspension of his current driving license for one year.
A motion in arrest of judgment was filed and overruled.
The error assigned and relied upon by the appellant is the overruling of his motion for new trial; specifically appellant first sets forth the following allegations of error:
1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial in this, to-wit:
A. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion to quash.
B. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment.
A motion to quash is the proper pleading by the accused to question material defects appearing on the face of the affidavit. Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1129 (1956 Repl.). Appellant's motion to quash sets forth the following grounds:
1. The fact stated in the affidavit do not constitute a public offense.
2. The said affidavit or affidavits do not state the offense or offenses, charged with sufficient certainty.
3. That the pretended affidavit or affidavits herein filed are not sufficient in that they have not been sworn and subscribed to by an officer authorized to administer an oath, nor have they been approved by the Prosecuting Attorney.
The first pleading on the part of the State in a criminal action is either an indictment or affidavit, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1103 (1956 Repl.). Thus, the only means by which a criminal action may be commenced in the State of Indiana is by one of these two pleadings. One of the primary purposes of such pleadings is to fulfill the requirements of the Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 13:
'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial * * *, in the county in which the offense shall have been committed * * *; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him * * *'
If the Uniform Traffic Ticket, as used in the instant case, is to serve as the initial pleading on the part of the State, we must decide whether it meets the requirements of a valid affidavit when challenged by a motion to quash.
An affidavit must contain a statement of facts constituting the offense in plain and concise language without unnecessary repetition, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1104 (1956 Repl.). However, the affidavit may not be quashed for 'mere' surplusage, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1127 (1956 Repl.). If two or more distinct offenses are charged in the same count, the affidavit will be held had on a motion to quash. Knopf v. State, (1882), 84 Ind. 316; State v. Weil (1883), 89 Ind. 286; Joslyn v. State (1890), 128 Ind. 160, 27 N.E. 492.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hess v. State
...This affidavit would be defective for the same reasons that the Uniform Traffic Ticket was held to be defective in Watt v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 674, 234 N.E.2d 471. Appellant, however, did not attack the affidavit on this basis and his arguments are equally applicable to both affidavits. ......
-
Butler v. State
...to Transfer that a uniform traffic ticket or citation is the functional equivalent of an information or indictment. Watt v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 674, 234 N.E.2d 471.9 Ind.Code Ann. § 9-11-2-1(b) (West Supp.1987), recodified at § 9-30-5-1, see note 1, supra.10 Section 35-35-1-3 provides in......
-
U.S. v. Goot
...give him the bond receipt. Goot then would enter an appearance for his client and file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Watt v. State, 249 Ind. 674, 234 N.E.2d 471 (1968). After filing a Watt motion, Goot would inform Morfas about the case and Morfas would steal and destroy the prosecutor's ......
-
Defries v. State
...v. State, (1919) 188 Ind. 447, 455, 124 N.E. 458; Sunderman v. State, (1925) 197 Ind. 705, 706, 151 N.E. 829. See also Watt v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 674, 234 N.E.2d 471. It has also been decided that a motion for a bill of particulars is inappropriate under such circumstances in that the n......