Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

244 Ind. 501

193 N.E.2d 908

CLEMENTS v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1963

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1963-11-21

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1971

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is fundamental that in order to present error on appeal such error must be set forth in the assignment of errors, and the specification or specifications of such assignment of errors, or the substance thereof, must appear in the ‘Concise Statement of the Record’ under Rule 2-17 (d). Without such compliance the judges cannot give intelligent consideration to the issues oh the appeal without resorting to the record (only one copy of which is available to be shared by the five judges of this Court),...””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Sims v. State, 149 Ind. App. 5 - Willsey v. Hartman

““Appellant’s original brief fails to contain a copy of the assignment of errors or any specification thereof. Nor does it state the substance of any assignment so that it could be held there was a substantial compliance with the rules on appellate procedure. “These rules are based upon experience, and are designed to expedite the disposition of appeals, as well as lessen costs and expense for the parties. The rules do not require the record on appeal be printed so that each Judge may have a copy. Appellant’s original brief is required to be prepared in such manner that a printed copy of the record for each Judge will be unnecessary for him to be properly advised on each matter involved in the appeal. The rules in general do provide that appellant’s original brief present his assertions of errors, and so much of the record as may be involved in the determination of the issues he presents on appeal. Each Judge is entitled to be so advised from this brief, and he is not required to examine the record for this information.” (Citing authorities.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 149 Ind. App. 5 - Willsey v. Hartman

Relies on Marks v. State · Waggoner v. State · Grecco v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-11-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the lower court rendered on its finding determining appellants to be guilty of robbery for which they were sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for a period of 10 years.

¶2 Appellee (the State) has filed motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment setting up that appellants have failed to incorporate in their brief a copy of the assignment of errors or any statement concerning its context and do not give the page or line of the record where the same may be found.

¶3 It is fundamental that in order to present error on appeal such error must be set forth in the assignment of errors, and the specification or specifications of such assignment of errors, or the substance thereof, must appear in the “Concise Statement of the Record” under Rule 2-17 (d). Without such compliance the judges cannot give intelligent consideration to the issues on the appeal without resorting to the record (only one copy of which is available to be shared by the five judges of this Court), and accordingly it is well settled that where appellant’s brief fails to set forth the record or the substance thereof in this important respect, the appellate tribunal is under no duty to search the record to reverse the cause. Grecco v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 584, 593, 166 N. E. 2d 180, 167 N. E. 2d 714, 715; Marks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 9, 22, 40 N. E. 2d 108, 113; Waggoner v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 269, 272, 85 N. E. 2d 642, 643; 9 Ind. Law Encyl., Criminal Law, §693, pp. 189, 190.

¶4*503 As no questions are before us for decision, the judgment is affirmed.

¶5 Note. — Reported in 193 N. E. 2d 908.

/244/ind/501 · .json · Public domain