Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Ind. 214

McDonald v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-05-15

<p>Practice. — New Trial. — Record.—Matters assigned as causes for a new-trial, and set out in the motion therefor, can not he taken as true statements, if they appear nowhere else in the record.</p> <p>Same. — Bill of Exceptions. — Special Instructions. — Oral Instructions. — Alleged erroneous action of the trial court in refusing to instruct the jury specially as asked, and in modifying the several instructions asked without putting the modifications in writing, and in instructing the' jury orally, must he shown in the record either hy a bill of exceptions- or in some other manner authorized hy law.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1892

3 state decisions

Relies on Burnett v. Overton · Bates v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Howk, C. J.

¶1The indictment in this case charged the appellant, Hugh McDonald, and one George Wallace, with the crime of grand larceny. Upon arraignment, the appellant entered a plea of “not guilty,” as charged in the indictment, and was separately tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned finding him guilty as charged, and assessing his punishment at a fine of one dollar and imprisonment in the State’s prison for the term of two years, and disfranchisement, etc., for. the same period. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, and his exception saved to this ruling, the court rendered judgment against him, in accordance with the verdict.

¶2The only error complained of by the appellant, in this court, is the decision of the trial court in overruling his motion for a new trial. In discussing this supposed error, the appellant’s counsel have confined their argument to the alleged erroneous action of the court in refusing to instruct the jury specially as asked, and in modifying the several instructions asked without putting the modifications in writing, and in instructing the jury orally. These matters are all assigned as causes for a new trial, in'the appellant’s motion therefor, but they appear nowhere else in the record. The special instructions asked by the appellant appear to have been set out in the motion for a new trial, and it is stated in said motion that the court refused to give these instructions as asked, and did not put in writing either its modifications of those instructions or its own instructions. But these statements in the motion for a new trial can not be taken as true, and their truth was not shown either by a bill of exceptions or in any other manner authorized by law. *216Buskirk's Practice, p. 254, and cases there cited, and Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557. It follows, therefore, that the questions discussed by the appellant’s counsel are not presented for our decision by the record of this cause. Bates v. The State, 72 Ind. 434.

¶3We find no error in the record.

¶4The judgment is affirmed, at the appellant’s costs.

¶5Petition for a rehearing overruled.

/74/ind/214 · .json · Public domain