![]() ![]() An alleged error should be first specifically presented to the trial court for an opportunity for correction and should not be hidden in a generality to be later specifically raised on appeal. The Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors is deficient in this respect regarding this issue. Issues asserted to be errors not stated with specificity in a motion to correct errors are deemed waived on appeal pursuant to subsection (G) of Ind.R.Tr.P. "The statement of claimed errors shall be specific rather than general, and shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts and grounds upon which the errors are based." Subsection (B) of that rule similarly reads in part: "(4) the verdict or decision is not supported by sufficient evidence upon all necessary elements of a claim or defense, or is contrary to the evidence specifically pointing out the insufficiency or defect" In listing a number of errors which may be alleged, Ind.R.Tr.P. 16, provides as a condition for appeal that a motion to correct errors shall separately state each error with specificity. 59, made applicable to criminal cases by Ind.R.Cr.P. It is insufficient to put the trial court on notice of the particular error alleged. Such a general statement is not sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of our trial rules. That the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence." The Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors purports to embrace this issue with the following specification of error: We find that the Appellant has waived the right to appeal such issue. The Appellant contends (for the first time on appeal) that there was no direct testimony at trial establishing that the Appellant was over sixteen years of age. "Any person who being over sixteen years of age, commits or attempts to commit any felony while armed with any dangerous or deadly weapon, or while any other person is present and aiding or assisting in committing or attempting to commit such felony is armed with any dangerous or deadly weapon, shall be guilty of a separate felony and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for determinate period of not less than ten years nor more than thirty years." The Appellant's first contention of reversible error is that the State failed to prove a material element of the crime charged. Later that day at the police station and at trial the witness identified the Appellant as her assailant. the witness was able to escape from the car. Various *630 sexual advances were made toward her, including kissing and other physical contact, in the course of this drive. ![]() The witness was forced at razor-point to drive this man around. As she entered her auto, a man put a straight razor in front of her face and told her to move over. Testimony of Merrie Laster revealed that on June 7, 1974, the witness finished work at a steel plant at about 7:00 a.m. The Appellant was convicted on September 17, 1974, for kidnapping and the commission of or attempt to commit crime while armed with a deadly weapon. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |