Solimeto v. State

Solimeto v. State of Indiana

Solimeto v. State, 122 N.E. 578 (Ind. 1919)

Court: Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 25, 1919
Docket: No. 23,411
Judges: Townsend
Citations: 122 N.E. 578188 Ind. 1701919 Ind. LEXIS 32
Disposition: Affirmed.

Headnotes

1. Criminal Law. — Appeal.—Briefs.—Sufficiency.—Where a defendant in a criminal case sets out in his brief as error the overruling of motions to quash the affidavit, to continue the cause, and for new trial, but sets, out neither a,copy of the affidavit nor copies of such motions, the brief is insufficient to present error under the fifth clause of Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, which requires a concise statement of so much of the record as presents every error relied on. p. 171. 2. Constitutional Law. — Legislative Power. — Encroachment on Judiciary. — Rules of Court. — The Supreme Court has power to make its own rules as to briefs and as to the conduct of business before the court, and §3, Acts 1917 p. 523, in so far as it refers to rules relative to the sufficiency of briefs and the pointing out of defects therein, is void. p. 171.

Summary

From the Monroe Circuit Court; Robert W. Miers, Judge. Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Vito Solimeto. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Townsend

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Townsend, J.

— Appellant was convicted on an affidavit filed in the lower court for a violation of what is commonly known as the “Blind Tiger” Law. Errors set out in his brief are: (1) The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the affidavit. (2) The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance. (3) The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

1. Appellant does not set out in his brief a copy of the affidavit, a copy of his motion to quash, a copy of his motion for a continuance, or a copy of his motion for a new trial. Section 5 of Rule 22 requires that the briefs shall set out a concise statement of so much of the record as presents every error and exception relied on. This rule of court has been effective since November 26, 1900, and it has been held in innumerable decisions of this and the Appellate Court that briefs must be so prepared that each member of the court may be able to understand the questions presented without referring to the transcript.

2. It may be that appellant - was relying upon §3 of chapter 143, Acts .1917 p. 523. So far as this act refers to the rules of this court and what shall be deemed a sufficient brief, and when defects in such brief shall be pointed out, the same is void. This court has power to make its own rules as to briefs, and as to the conduct of business before the court. It is not a legislative function to make rules for the court, or to say what the court shall consider a suf *172 ficient brief. This court will have to be the judge of how it can best expedite business, and -how questions can best be presented by briefs so that each member of the court may have an opportunity, if necessary, to consider particularly each case. So far as briefing is concerned, it will be well for litigants to proceed as they have heretofore under the. rules made by this court.

Appellant’s brief herein presents no questions, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 122 N. E. 578 . Rules of court: construction of, 41 Am. St. 645; validity of court rule in contravention of statute, 19 Ann. Cas. 801. See under (2) 12 C. J. 827.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Epstein v. State127 N.E. 441 (Ind. 1920)
In re Tina T.579 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. 1991)
State ex rel. Kostas v. Johnson69 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. 1946)
State v. Monfort723 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2000)
Gray v. McLaughlin131 N.E. 518 (Ind. 1921)
McCrocklin v. State126 N.E. 678 (Ind. 1920)

Most recent

Woolley v. Washington Township of Marion County Small Claims Court804 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Monfort723 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2000)
In re Tina T.579 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. 1991)
State ex rel. Blood v. Gibson Circuit Court157 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. 1959)
State ex rel. Kostas v. Johnson69 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. 1946)
State ex rel. Conway v. Superior Court131 P.2d 983 (Ariz. 1942)

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.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Heier v. State, 122 N.E. 578 (Ind. 1919)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list