White v. State, 29205
| Decision Date | 04 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 29205,29205 |
| Parties | Fred WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert D. Symmes, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Thomas M. Crowdus, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for murder in the second degree. The was tried by jury and found guilty as charged. The court pronounced judgment upon the verdict, sentencing appellant to the Indiana State Prison for life.
The error assigned is the overruling of his amended motion for new trial. The grounds asserted in the motion for new trial and relied upon for reversal are as follows:
'(1) The court erred in refusing the defendant motion for directed verdict.
'(2) That the court erred in admitting in evidence the gun and bullet which had not been connected with the body of John C. Duncan.
'(3) That the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
'(4) That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
'(5) That the defendant herein attached the affidavit of Albert Davis one of the jurors in the entitled cause and same is made a part of the defendant's motion for a new trial hereof and marked Exhibit A.'
We entertain considerable doubt as to whether appellant in the preparation of his brief has made a 'good faith effort' to comply with Rule 2-17(e) and (f) of this court. However, we have elected to assert that doubt in favor of appellant, and to consider the appeal on its merits. We will, therefore, consider appellant's contentions in the order above presented:
(1) Error, if any, resulting from the overruling of appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's evidence was waived by appellant by the fact that he thereafter introduced evidence in his defense. Fausett v. State, 1942, 219 Ind. 500, 502, 39 N.E.2d 728.
(2) Appellant admits (and the record shows) that said exhibits were admitted without objection. Therefore, no question was reserved.
(3) The appellant contends that 'the verdict was contrary to law' for the reason that a police officer who testified as a ballistics expert, relating the gun to the bullet recovered from decedent's body, was not qualified as an expert and that the admission of both his opinion testimony and the bullets as exhibits was reversible error. However, appellant's contention is without foundation. On examination of the testimony regarding the officer's qualification, we conclude that he was qualified to testify as an expert upon the subject of his testimony. Furthermore, no objection was made to the admission of his testimony and exhibits. Therefore, no question as to his qualification was reserved.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noble County Council v. State ex rel. Fifer
... ... at page 62, 35 N.E. at page 686 ... 'See also Board of Com'rs of White County v. Gwin, 1894, 136 Ind. 562, 36 N.E. 237, 22 L.R.A. 402.' ... The same rule has been asserted by this court in cases which ... ...
-
Waye v. State
...supra; Widup v. State (1967), 250 Ind. 1, 230 N.E.2d 767; Groover v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 271, 156 N.E.2d 307; White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 193, 125 N.E.2d 442. There are, however, instances where indiscriminate application of the rule without regard to the attendant circumstances of t......
-
Douglas v. State
...might have such information and not have to operate in a vacuum so as to preclude the administration of equal justice. White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 193, 125 N.E.2d 442; Crawford v. Anderson (1891), 129 Ind. 117, 28 N.E. D. Improper Line-Up Identification Procedure (MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL--......
-
Robbins v. State, 1267S136
...to have waived this argument at any one of these four stages of the proceeding by not making a timely objection. White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 193, 125 N.E.2d 442; Poehler v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 207, 142 N.E. 410; May v. State (1894), 140 Ind. 88, 39 N.E. 701; Stearn v. State (1951), 2......