Opinion
No. 27,778.
Filed March 19, 1943.
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Evidence — Failure to Include Portion in Briefs — Record Not Searched to Reverse. — On appeal from a conviction in a prosecution for failure to provide for a minor child, alleged error in the admission in evidence of a marriage certificate and the refusal of the court to require the mother and the child to submit to blood tests would not be considered, where neither the marriage certificate nor the motion to require the blood tests were set out in appellant's brief, since the Supreme Court does not search the record for grounds to reverse. p. 251.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — Trial — Directed Verdict — Waiver of Request by Subsequent Offer of Evidence — Defendant, by offering evidence in his own behalf, waived his request for a directed verdict, which was made at the close of the State's evidence. p. 251.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Record — Newly Discovered Evidence — Affidavits Not Properly in Record — Effect. — Alleged error in overruling a motion for new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence will not be considered on appeal where the affidavits offered in support of the claim of newly discovered evidence are not in the record, except as they appear in the motion for new trial. p. 251.
From the Huntington Circuit Court; Carl G. Bonewitz, Judge.
Martin L. Shriner was convicted of failing to provide for his minor child, and he appealed.
Affirmed.
C.W.H. Bangs, of Huntington, for appellant.
George N. Beamer, Attorney General, and Norman E. Duke, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted on an affidavit charging him with failing to provide for his minor child. He has appealed assigning error on the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The specific errors relied upon are: The admission in evidence of the marriage certificate of the appellant and the mother of the child; the refusal of the trial court to require the mother and child to submit to blood tests to determine its paternity; the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the appellant at the close of the State's evidence; and the denial of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Neither the marriage certificate nor the motion to require blood tests is set out in the appellant's brief. We do not search the record for grounds to reverse. Shaddy v. Yount 1-3. (1940), 217 Ind. 26, 25 N.E.2d 450. The request for a directed verdict was waived when the appellant offered evidence in his own behalf. Indiana Insurance Co. v. Handlon (1940), 216 Ind. 442, 24 N.E.2d 1003. The affidavits offered in support of the claim of newly discovered evidence are not in the record, except as they appear in the motion for a new trial. This is not sufficient. Williams v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 94, 60 N.E. 942.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE. — Reported in 47 N.E.2d 139.