Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

192 Ind. 602

Oelfke v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1923

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1923-01-02

Relies on Barker v. State · McCrocklin v. State · Dorsey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1923-01-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1949

3 state decisions

10192319301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Willoughby, J.

¶1The appellant was convicted of embezzlement. After a motion for a new trial was overruled and judgment rendered upon the verdict, appellant appealed and the only error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial.

¶2The motion for a new trial is not set out in appellant’s brief nor the substance of it stated therein.

¶3Appellant’s brief, under the heading of “Points and Authorities,” does not contain separately numbered propositions or points stated concisely and with-out argument, under separate headings as required by Rule 22, clause 5, of the Supreme Court. The appellant merely setting forth a series of abstract propositions of law, without applying them, or any of them, to any specific ruling of the trial court.

¶4The attorney-general, in appellee’s brief, after pointing out the above defects in appellant’s brief, contends that no question is presented to this court for review. No attempt has been made by the appellant to amend his brief. The contention of the attorney-general must be sustained.

¶5When neither the motion for a new trial, nor the substance thereof, is set out in appellant’s brief, all questions sought to be presented thereby are waived. State, ex rel. v. Birden, Trustee (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N. E. 865; Robbins v. Bank (1917), 186 Ind. 573, 117 N. E. 562; Pugh, Admr., v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 184 Ind. 350, 110 N. E. 193; Ewbank’s Manual (2d ed.) §182a; Solimeto v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 170, 122 N. E. 578.

¶6Where, as in this case, appellant’s brief fails to make clear what error is complained of and is in such con*604dition that the question whether error was committed cannot be determined from it, the court on appeal will not search the record to find error. Wheeler v. State (1919) , 188 Ind. 228, 122 N. E. 769; Barker v. State (1918), 188 Ind. 263, 120 N. E. 593; Dorsey v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 531, 100 N. E. 369; McCrocklin v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 254, 126 N. E. 678.

¶7No question being presented for the consideration of this court, the judgment is affirmed.

¶8Townsend, J., absent.

/192/ind/602 · .json · Public domain