Wright v. State, 29556

Decision Date30 January 1958
Docket NumberNo. 29556,29556
PartiesKeith E. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

James E. Rocap, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin D. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Owen S. Boling and Merl M. Wall, Deputies Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ACHOR, Judge.

This was a criminal action wherein appellant was charged by affidavit in two counts: (1) For burglary and removal of a safe, under § 10-702a, Burns' 1956 Repl., (2) automobile banditry, under § 10-4710, Burns' 1956 Repl. Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of both counts. The court entered judgment on count 2 and sentenced him to the Indiana State Prison for a determinate period of 10 years. A motion for new trial was filed and overruled and this appeal followed.

Appellant asserts here as cause for appeal grounds numbered 1 to 11, as stated in the motion for new trial. However, grounds numbered 6 through 11 are not supported by any cogent argument or citation or authorities. It is encumbent upon appellant on appeal, whether the cause be civil or criminal, to affirmatively show harmful error by argument and citation of authorities. Rule 2-17(e). Errors assigned and causes for new trial not so treated are deemed to be waived. Rule 2-17(f).

Our consideration therefore is limited to grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the motion for new trial.

As to grounds 1 and 2, appellant asserts that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. His contention under these points is that he was not sufficiently identified to have been convicted to automobile banditry. Upon this issue appellant first questions the probative value of the identification made by Ovelle Calvelage when appellant was in the yard back of her apartment after appellant's arrest. It is not necessary that we decide whether or not this evidence was either admissible or of probative value. The witness had already indentified appellant in the court room as the man she had seen commit the burglary. Therefore, no exists as to the identification of appellant by the witness.

Appellant also argues that the 15 characteristics of his fingerprints described in evidence are not sufficient to serve as a standard for identification. The state's witness testified that 12 characteristics were all that were necessary and his testimony as an expert was not questioned. Appellant has not supported his argument by authorities on the above points as required by Rule 2-17(e), and as the sufficiency of the proof upon these points was a matter to be determined by the jury, and there was evidence of probative value in proof of each point, this court is not at liberty to weigh the evidence. No error is presented as to grounds 1 and 2.

As to ground 3, appellant asserts that the court erroneously admitted the testimony of the witness Ovelle Calvelage identifying appellant while in the yard back of her apartment the day following the burglary. The objection made to the testimony in the trial court is as follows:

'We object to that. She allegedly identified him in Court.

'They are attempting to bolster up the identification by prior identifications which they can't do.'

The objection here is too indefinite to present any issue.

As to ground 4, appellant alleges that the court committed error in permitting the witness Ovelle Calvelage to testify that she had identified to an officer the car which appellant had used at the scene of the crime. The objection to the testimony and the argument made regarding this evidence are the same as in the previous paragraph. Nothing is presneted thereby.

As to ground 5, appe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 30 Agosto 1979
    ...See also Loeb v. Loeb (1973), 261 Ind. 193, 301 N.E.2d 349; Hitch v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 1, 284 N.E.2d 783; Wright v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 593, 147 N.E.2d 551; Beech v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 287, 319 N.E.2d The next contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit def......
  • Gibson v. Kincaid, 20251
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1966
    ...said Rule 2--17(e), the appellant on appeal must show harmful error by cogent argument and citation of authorities. Wright v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 593, 595, 147 N.E.2d 551; Ecker v. Fuchs (1959), 129 Ind.App. 555, 566, 567, 159 N.E.2d 134.' Chadwick et al. v. Baughman et al. (1963), 134 I......
  • Hester v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 15 Agosto 1974
    ...of was prejudicial. Turner v. State (1972), Ind., 287 N.E.2d 339; Hitch v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 783; Wright v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 593, 147 N.E.2d 551. Here, there has not been so much as a showing that the prospective jurors who allegedly were exposed to a prejudicial display ......
  • Burnett v. State, 2--174A15
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 19 Diciembre 1974
    ...786; Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205, 240 N.E.2d 489; Coppenhaver v. State (1973), 160 Ind. 540, 67 N.E. 453; Wright v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 593, 147 N.E.2d 551; Fortune v. State (1937), 212 Ind. 325, 9 N.E.2d 81; Cooper v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 799; Williams v. State (1973)......
  • 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