Worrell v. State, No. 14061.

Docket NºNo. 14061.
Citation91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 208
Case DateApril 09, 1930
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

91 Ind.App. 259
171 N.E. 208

WORRELL
v.
STATE.

No. 14061.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

April 9, 1930.


Appeal from Delaware Circuit Court; Clarence W. Dearth, Judge.

Arley Worrell was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.


Clarence E. Benadum, of Muncie, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Edward J. Lennon, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


NEAL, P. J.

Appellant was found guilty of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor pursuant to Burns' Ann. St. 1926, § 2717, by a jury, and his punishment fixed by fine in the sum of $1,000, to which was added a jail sentence of 60 days.

[1][2] The appellant filed his verified motion to “quash and vacate the affidavit for search warrant, search warrant, return thereon, and to suppress the evidence,” which motion was overruled and exceptions taken. He also filed his motion to quash the affidavit, which motion was also overruled and exception given. Appellant filed motion for a new trial, which motion was likewise overruled and exception given. Appellant assigns as error: (1) Overruling the motion to quash the affidavit for search warrant and to suppress the evidence; (2) overruling the motion to quash; (3) overruling the motion for a new trial. And the several causes specified thereunder are: (a) The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (b) the verdict is contrary to law; (c) separate error in the giving of each of fourteen instructions by the court on its own motion; (d) error in the admission of several items of evidence; (e) error in overruling the motion to suppress.

In an examination of appellant's brief the division thereof entitled “Points and Authorities” only one alleged error is called to the attention of the court to wit: “The court erred in overruling the appellant's motion to quash and vacate affidavit for search

[171 N.E. 209]

warrant, search warrant, return thereon, and to suppress the evidence.” We cannot ascertain whether the several “Points and Authorities” made under the proposition on the motion to suppress relate to the alleged error in overruling the motion to suppress which is made an independent assignment of error, or whether it is directed to the cause, under the motion for a new trial, that the court erred in overruling the motion to suppress. It has repeatedly been decided by the Supreme and Appellate Courts that the overruling of a motion to suppress is a proper cause for a new trial and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Ballard v. State, No. 1174S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1974
    ...N.E.2d 799; Johnson v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Corrao v. State, (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 484; Worrell v. State, (1930) 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 3 'See, e.g., Loeb v. Loeb, (1973) Ind., 301 N.E.2d 349; Young v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 173, 273 N.E.2d 285; Maynard v. State, (19......
  • Ballard v. State, No. 2--273A37
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1974
    ...N.E.2d 799; Johnson v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Corrao v. State, (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 484; Worrell v. State, (1930) 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 3 See, e.g., Loeb v. Loeb, (1973) Ind., 301 N.E.2d 349; Young v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 173, 273 N.E.2d 285; Maynard v. State, (197......
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 20, 1975
    ...State (1971), 256 Ind. 309, 268 N.E.2d 609; Cody v. State (1973), [163 Ind.App. 233] Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820; Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 208. Also, his Motion to Correct Errors is silent on this subject. Miresso's second waived issue concerns certain exhibits entere......
  • Corrao v. State, No. 3--672A17
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 18, 1972
    ...search warrant he cannot complain of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to suppress. Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 208. Other jurisdictions have taken this same approach. See 50 A.L.R.2d 531, The failure of the defendants to properly object at trial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Ballard v. State, No. 1174S224
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1974
    ...N.E.2d 799; Johnson v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Corrao v. State, (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 484; Worrell v. State, (1930) 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 3 'See, e.g., Loeb v. Loeb, (1973) Ind., 301 N.E.2d 349; Young v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 173, 273 N.E.2d 285; Maynard v. State, (19......
  • Ballard v. State, No. 2--273A37
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1974
    ...N.E.2d 799; Johnson v. State, (1972) Ind., 284 N.E.2d 517; Corrao v. State, (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 484; Worrell v. State, (1930) 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 3 See, e.g., Loeb v. Loeb, (1973) Ind., 301 N.E.2d 349; Young v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 173, 273 N.E.2d 285; Maynard v. State, (197......
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 20, 1975
    ...State (1971), 256 Ind. 309, 268 N.E.2d 609; Cody v. State (1973), [163 Ind.App. 233] Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 820; Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 208. Also, his Motion to Correct Errors is silent on this subject. Miresso's second waived issue concerns certain exhibits entere......
  • Corrao v. State, No. 3--672A17
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 18, 1972
    ...search warrant he cannot complain of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to suppress. Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind.App. 259, 171 N.E. 208. Other jurisdictions have taken this same approach. See 50 A.L.R.2d 531, The failure of the defendants to properly object at trial ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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