Wheeler v. State
| Decision Date | 18 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 23,359 |
| Citation | 122 N.E. 769,188 Ind. 228 |
| Parties | Wheeler v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Marion Criminal Court (45,763); James A. Collins, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Charles Wheeler. From a judgment of conviction the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph G. Graham and Roach & Ballard, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, Alvah J. Rucker, Elmer E. Hastings and Dale F. Stansbury, for the state.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant's brief is in such condition that we cannot tell that any error was committed. It presents numerous motions at numerous times with reference to the jury, and indicates that evidence was heard on these motions and examination of jurors made, and examination of jury commissioners made; but it is nowhere made clear what error appellant is complaining of. When he complains of the exclusion of evidence to sustain a motion, he does not set out the questions, the offers to prove and the rulings of the court thereon, or exception thereto, or tell where this may be found; in fact, does nothing to make his pretended points intelligible.
From what we are able to gather from the oral argument and the brief of the state, we are inclined to think that all of the errors of the court lean towards virtue's side. That is to say, that because appellant was a person of African descent, the court permitted his lawyers greater latitude in motions and objections, and contentions about different things, in the introduction of evidence thereon, than the law required him to give them. It appears that the trial court was more than fair to appellant.
The brief being in such condition that even the counsel who argued the case orally cannot understand it himself, we are at a loss to know why we should be called upon to search the record to find some error. Subdivision 5, Rule 22, is too plain to require construction.
Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perfect v. State
... ... of any witness is within the sound discretion of the trial ... court, and there being no specific showing of error or abuse ... of that discretion, this court will not presume error. See ... Eacock v. State (1907), 169 Ind. 488, 82 ... N.E. 1039; Wheeler v. State (1919), 188 ... Ind. 228, 122 N.E. 769. Rule 22 Supreme Court. In ... Eacock v. State, supra, this court ... said: "It is a settled rule in this state that it is not ... error for the trial court to limit questions on the ... cross-examination of a witness to the subject covered or ... ...
-
Schaffer v. State
... ... of any witness is within the sound discretion of the trial ... court, and, there being [202 Ind. 321] no specific showing of ... error or abuse of that discretion, this court will not ... presume error. Eacock v. State (1907), 169 ... Ind. 488, 82 N.E. 1039; Wheeler v. State ... (1919), 188 Ind. 228, 122 N.E. 769; Rule 22 Supreme Court. In ... this case there is no specific showing of error or abuse of ... discretion by the trial court, and such court did not err in ... unduly restraining the cross-examination of said witness, ... Demas Murray. Perfect v ... ...
-
Oelfke v. State
... ... as in this case, appellant's brief fails to make clear ... what error is complained of and is in such condition [192 ... Ind. 604] that the question whether error was committed ... cannot be determined from it, the court on appeal will not ... search the record to find error. Wheeler v ... State (1919), 188 Ind. 228, 122 N.E. 769; ... Barker v. State (1918), 188 Ind. 263, 120 ... N.E. 593; Dorsey v. State (1913), 179 Ind ... 531, 100 N.E. 369; McCrocklin v. State ... (1920), 189 Ind. 254, 126 N.E. 678 ... No ... ...
-
Schaffer v. State
...of error or abuse of that discretion, this court will not presume error. Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488, 82 N. E. 1039;Wheeler v. State, 188 Ind. 228, 122 N. E. 769; Rule 22, Supreme Court. In this case there is no specific showing of error or abuse of discretion by the trial court, and such......