Fox v. State
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- De Latour v. State (Ind. 1929)
- Modern Woodmen v. Ball (Ind. Ct. App. 1921)
- Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Hardwick (Ind. Ct. App. 1919)
- State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden (Ind. 1918)
- Duvall v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment which charges him with a violation of §8351 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p. 689. On appeal he assigns as error that the Marion Criminal Court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. This motion contains four grounds, each of which requires for its-consideration a review of the evidence on which the conviction is based, but in his statement of the record appellant has failed to set out even the substance of such evidence. Reference is made to parts thereof in his argument and an attempt has been made to supply the omitted statement in the reply brief, but this is not sufficient. Ogle v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 672, 100 N. E. 5; Supreme Tribe, etc. v. Kraft (1915), 183 Ind. 427, 109 N. E. 403; Waters v. Delagrange (1915), 183 Ind. 497, 500, 109 N. E. 758.
The failure properly to present any question for our consideration requires an affirmance of the judgment. We have taken occasion, however, to review the evidence as set forth in the record and conclude that a right result was reached in the trial court. Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 116 N. E. 295,
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.