CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Review of Ruling on Motion for New Trial — Motion Absent from Brief. — On appeal from a conviction for a criminal offense, the assigned error being the overruling of the motion for a new trial, no question is presented for review where the motion for a new trial is not set out in appellant's brief.
ENLOE, J.
Martha Swarat, Hattie Weakly, Bessie Shaw, Marie McGlynn and Ray Mitchell were indicted by the grand jury of Marion county upon a charge of conspiracy to steal merchandise. The defendants, Swarat, McGlynn and Mitchell each pleaded not guilty. From a finding by the court of "guilty as charged," separate appeals have been prosecuted, the error assigned herein being the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. We have searched the brief of appellant in vain to find her motion for a new trial. Under the third subdivision of said brief, "How the issues were decided and what the judgment was," we find the following: "The defendant, Marie McGlynn, thereupon filed a motion for a new trial (Rec. pp. 12, 13, 14), which motion was, by the court, overruled (Rec. p. 15)"; and, under the fifth subdivision of said brief, "The Record," we find the following: "Motion for a new trial is overruled and to which ruling the defendant by counsel excepts. (See Rec. L. 1 2 p. 15)." It follows that the brief is insufficient to present any question, State, ex rel., v. Birden (1918), 187 Ind. 466, 119 N.E. 865; Buser, Comptroller, v. State, ex rel. (1928), 200 Ind. 115, 161 N.E. 825; State, ex rel., v. Hinds, Trustee (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N.E. 754.
Affirmed.