Snider v. State
Snider v. State of Indiana
Opinion
Draper, J.
The appellant, was charged with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating- liquor. He was tried by jury and found guilty. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled, and he appeals.
1
A determination of the alleged errors assigned in appellant’s motion for new trial would require a consideration of matters which could only be shown by a bill of exceptions. The record contains no bill of exceptions “signed by the judge and filed with the clerk” as required by Rule 2-3 of this court. Thus, no question *504 has been presented to this court, and the judgment must be affirmed.
So ordered.
Flanagan, C. J., Bobbitt, Emmert and Gilkison, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 121 N. E. 2d 731 .
1
. No judgment on the verdict had been rendered when the original transcript was filed. In accordance with Rule 2-3 of this court, we retained jurisdiction of the appeal and suspended consideration thereof until judgment was shown to have been rendered as evidenced by the filing here of a duly certified copy thereof. See Wilson v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 495 , 112 N. E. 2d 449 .
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.