The case involved a criminal prosecution in which appellant Charles Cole and a codefendant were charged with unlawfully possessing a still and distilling apparatus for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. After a jury trial resulting in convictions, Cole appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in refusing three of his tendered jury instructions, one addressing each juror's individual duty to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and two concerning the alibi defense. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions actually given by the court fully and correctly covered the legal principles in the refused instructions. The court reasoned that prior precedent established the sufficiency of instructions emphasizing each juror's personal responsibility and that the court's alibi instructions adequately addressed both the defense and the effect of reasonable doubt as to any defendant's presence at the scene.

criminal lawprocedure

In Romeo v. State, the appellant was indicted for first-degree murder for shooting and killing Salvatore Bianco but was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder. The appeal challenged the trial court's jury instructions, including instruction No. 8, which defined manslaughter and stated that involuntary manslaughter was not within the issues of the case and need not be considered. The court held that the instructions incorrectly removed from the jury's consideration the possibility of convicting on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, contrary to statutes allowing convictions on lesser degrees or included offenses and violating the Indiana Constitution's provision that juries determine both the law and the facts. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Leo Schaffer, who was separately tried after being jointly indicted with others for rape under an Indiana statute. He was convicted by a jury of assault and battery with intent to commit rape and sentenced to a term of five to twenty-one years in the reformatory. On appeal, Schaffer challenged the trial court's rulings on witness testimony, cross-examination limits, jury instructions about the applicable statute after a 1927 amendment, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, the prior law on assault and battery with intent to rape remained in effect due to the repealing clause's language, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the charged intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by a defendant convicted separately on counts of second-degree burglary and grand larceny after a jury trial, with the sole claim of error being the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial alleging irregularities, juror misconduct, and insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The core reasoning was that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence and trial proceedings was not presented or filed within the required timeframe or with proper court authorization shown in the record, rendering it unavailable for review; without the evidence in the record, alleged errors such as juror challenges or verdict sufficiency could not be examined, and the trial court's rulings are presumed correct.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved appellant Milton H. Clark's suit to vacate a $3,000 judgment for spousal support obtained by appellee Chlo Clark against him and trustees holding his Indiana property under a will. Clark's complaint alleged lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service by publication on a nonresident, and a violation of due process because the judgment was in personam. The trial court sustained demurrers to all paragraphs of the complaint, and Clark refused to amend. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the original proceeding was in rem against property located in Indiana, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter under the 1923 support statute, the trustees were properly served, and the collateral attack did not allege fraud, lack of notice, or any defense to the underlying claim.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved appellant Wilbur Acton, who was charged in White Circuit Court with raping a female child under age 16 and convicted by a jury of the lesser offense of assault and battery with intent to commit rape. Acton appealed, arguing that the victim's name in the affidavit (Helen Lucas) was incorrect and that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence or was contrary to law, along with claims of error in jury instructions. The court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the instructions were not properly brought into the record by bill of exceptions, that a popular or commonly used name for the victim was sufficient without material variance, and that the evidence supported the verdict of the lesser included offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal from a conviction for assault and battery with intent to rape a female child under 12 years old, based on an affidavit alleging the acts occurred in Lake County, Indiana, around June 1927. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty after hearing evidence of repeated sexual acts with the victim over several months, sentenced him to 1-10 years in prison, and overruled his motion for a new trial; the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding, a conviction on the lesser offense was permissible even if the evidence showed a completed rape, the credibility of the victim's testimony was for the trial court to determine, and the claimed newly discovered evidence was cumulative, inadmissible, or not shown to have been undiscoverable with due diligence.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal by Titzer from his conviction under Indiana law for unlawfully possessing and using a still to manufacture intoxicating liquor. The court reversed the judgment, holding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict because it only established the appellant's ownership of the still found on another person's farm, where it was in the actual possession of others, without proof of his control or use. The core reasoning was that a guilty verdict cannot rest on inferences drawn solely from the fact of ownership to establish both constructive possession and unlawful purpose, as that would involve improper inference upon inference.

criminal law

The case involved the prosecution of John F. Grose for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor in an automobile in Marion County, Indiana, based on an incident on March 8, 1927. After being stopped for a traffic violation, a half-pint bottle of "white mule" whisky was observed in plain view on the car seat, leading to his arrest and conviction by the trial court without a jury, resulting in a fine and prison sentence. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the evidence was properly obtained without an unlawful search and that the term "white mule" whisky sufficiently established it as intoxicating liquor under judicial notice.

criminal law

The case involved Oscar Hermann, who was charged and convicted of conspiring with another individual to unlawfully possess and operate a still for manufacturing intoxicating liquor in violation of Indiana law. After a jury trial resulting in a guilty verdict, the trial court denied Hermann's motion for a new trial based on alleged errors in jury instructions and insufficient evidence. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the challenge to the instructions as a group was invalid because not all were claimed to be erroneous and the others were admitted correct, while the evidence including accomplice testimony and circumstantial facts was sufficient to prove the conspiracy. The court noted that convictions may rest on an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony and that a conspiracy need not involve a formal agreement or joint possession of the still.

criminal law

The case involved the prosecution of Akers on an indictment with two counts: forging a promissory note and uttering the same forged instrument, both with intent to defraud a loan company as part of the same transaction. A jury found Akers guilty on both counts, resulting in a fine and a prison sentence of two to fourteen years. On appeal, Akers challenged the joinder of counts, the denial of a motion to elect, certain jury instructions, and related trial rulings, but the court determined that the counts were properly joined under Indiana law and that the appellant failed to properly preserve errors in the motion for a new trial, include instructions via bill of exceptions, or comply with briefing rules requiring specific record citations. As a result, no reviewable questions were presented, and the judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a criminal charge against Tony Gambino for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile in Cass County, Indiana. After a jury trial resulted in a guilty verdict and judgment, Gambino appealed, claiming errors in overruling his motions to quash, for a new trial, in arrest of judgment, and related evidentiary and instructional rulings. The appellate court determined that the appellant's brief failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 22 by not discussing the alleged errors in the Points and Authorities section, not referencing the record for rulings or exceptions, and otherwise waiving all claims of error. As a result, no questions were properly presented for review, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Roy Compton, who was convicted of obtaining merchandise by false pretenses after a trial without a jury. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit because it failed to allege that the company was the owner of the property or that it was induced by the false pretenses to part with the goods. The court held that an affidavit charging false pretenses must clearly state ownership and that the victim was deceived and parted with the property due to the deception. Because the affidavit omitted these essential elements, the court reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to sustain the motion to quash.

criminal law

The case involved an appellant convicted under Indiana's 1925 prohibition act for transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile, based on evidence from police officers that the substance was alcohol. The trial court found the defendant guilty after a bench trial and imposed a sentence of one to two years in prison plus a $100 fine. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute's definition of intoxicating liquor encompasses alcohol and that courts may take judicial notice of alcohol's status as an intoxicating substance without further evidence that it was intended for beverage use.

criminal law

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor in an automobile in Delaware County, Indiana, in violation of a 1925 state statute. The appellant challenged several trial court rulings, including the admission of evidence about items found in the car, the refusal of a requested jury instruction on reasonable doubt, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that motions to strike evidence were properly denied where portions were competent, the court's own instructions adequately addressed the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and the appellant failed to identify specific deficiencies in the evidence or preserve other claims of error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Boss v. Deak, petitioners sought to vacate a portion of a public highway in Elkhart County, Indiana, while remonstrators opposed the action on the ground that it would not serve the public utility; after viewers and reviewers found in favor of vacation, a jury trial in superior court also found for the petitioners and ordered the highway vacated. The appellants appealed, alleging errors in jury instructions on the meaning of public utility and in the admission of evidence regarding future railroad construction and opinions on utility. The court held that instruction No. 2 was incomplete but cured by other instructions given, that certain future plans and opinion testimony were improperly admitted, and that witnesses may not opine on the ultimate factual issue of public utility. It therefore reversed the judgment with directions to grant a new trial. The core reasoning focused on the proper scope of evidence and instructions for determining public utility in highway vacation proceedings under Indiana law.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the prosecution of appellant Liechty for raping a 14-year-old girl in Adams County, Indiana, on June 7, 1925, after which a jury returned a guilty verdict and judgment was entered. The appellant sought a new trial, claiming errors including improper jury instructions that allegedly omitted elements of the rape statute and various evidentiary rulings, but the court overruled the motion. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the instructions sufficiently covered the charged offense of carnal knowledge of a female under 16 without being misleading when read as a whole, that other alleged errors were not properly preserved or referenced in the appellate brief under court rules, and that the evidence supported the verdict. No reversible error was found in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wife's petition for the appointment of a temporary guardian or receiver over her husband's property without prior notice to him, based on allegations that he was of unsound mind, heavily indebted, threatening to allow foreclosure on mortgaged land, and allowing livestock and crops to waste. The trial court granted the ex parte appointment of a receiver. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that Indiana statute requires reasonable notice to the adverse party before appointing a receiver unless the verified complaint or affidavits show sufficient facts establishing an emergency that cannot be addressed by a temporary restraining order or other means, and that mere opinions or conclusions do not meet this standard.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Ray Mitchell was convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to commit felony theft of $27 in merchandise from H.P. Wasson and Company and was sentenced to a $25 fine plus two to fourteen years in the Indiana Reformatory. He appealed solely on the ground that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. Mitchell’s appellate brief, however, neither set out the motion or its substance nor identified any specific insufficiency in the evidence or other claimed errors. Citing prior decisions and Supreme Court Rule 22, the court held that the absence of these required showings meant the claimed error was not presented for review. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Russell v. Trustees of Purdue University, Purdue University, acting as a state corporation, filed a condemnation action to acquire fee-simple title to 32.54 acres of land owned by Phillip A. Russell and Mary J. Russell for the construction of dormitories connected to the university. The defendants filed amended objections challenging the court's jurisdiction, the university's authority to exercise eminent domain, and the constitutionality of the relevant statutes under the Indiana Constitution. The trial court overruled the objections and sustained a demurrer to them, after which the case proceeded to trial on the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that Purdue University qualifies as a state educational institution granted eminent domain power by the 1911 Act, that the dormitory use constitutes a public purpose, and that the legislation is valid as applied to this unique institution.

property