Woodward v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
• Citation: 198 Ind. 70,152 N.E. 277
• Docket Number: No. 24930.,24930.
• Parties: WOODWARD v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1926

198 Ind. 70
152 N.E. 277

WOODWARD
v.
STATE.

No. 24930.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 9, 1926.

Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court; Thos. J. Wilson, Judge.

Howard G. Woodward was convicted of perjury, and he appeals. Reversed with directions.

Clyde R. Lottick, of Corydon, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and George M. Barnard, of New Castle, for the State.

GEMMILL, J.

In the Harrison circuit court, the appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of perjury. He was found guilty by a jury. From the judgment rendered upon the verdict, this appeal has been taken. In the affidavit it is alleged that appellant appeared as a witness for the state in the case of State of Indiana v. James W. Jones, alias William S. Jones, in said court, in which criminal prosecution Jones was tried for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to the appellant, and that as such witness he swore falsely as therein set out. It is assigned as error that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. There is a second assignment of error, but same does not present any question for review.

[1][2] Fifteen causes are stated in the motion for a new trial. Some of same have been waived by appellant by not presenting them in his brief. Eight causes are based on the refusal of the court to permit certain witnesses to answer certain questions. When the court refused to permit the witnesses to answer said questions, the appellant did not show what he desired to prove by same. It is well settled that, when an appellant has

[152 N.E. 278]

made no offer as to what he expected to prove in answer, no question is raised upon the ruling sustaining an objection to the question. State ex rel. Repp v. Cox (1900) 155 Ind. 593, 58 N. E. 849;Williams v. Chapman (1903) 160 Ind. 130, 66 N. E. 460;Papenbrook v. White (1923) 194 Ind. 17, 141 N. E. 804;Mills v. Thomas (1924) 194 Ind. 648, 144 N. E. 412. It is not shown that there was any error in the admission or exclusion of evidence.

[3][4][5] It is insisted by the appellant that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under his plea of not guilty, appellant attempted on the trial of this cause to prove the defense of former jeopardy. It is true that he was tried twice for the crime of perjury. The first affidavit upon which appellant was tried and upon which he was acquitted was for perjury in a prosecution against Jones for the possession of liquor with intent to sell. This prosecution against Jones was dismissed and never tried. The second affidavit upon...