Cantrell v. State, 45944
| Decision Date | 12 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45944,45944 |
| Citation | 206 Kan. 323,478 P.2d 192 |
| Parties | Albert Lonzo CANTRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The use of a codefendant's pretrial confession or statement at joint trial of defendant and codefendant for the crime of burglary and larceny in connection with burglary was not prejudicial to defendant where the jury was instructed that such confession or statement was not to be considered against defendant, and the codefendant took the stand and was subject to full cross-examination.
2. A proceeding pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for a second appeal from a conviction.
3. A proceeding pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 cannot ordinarily be used for the purpose of reviewing trial errors which might have been reviewed in the original appeal.
Gwinn G. Shell, Garnett, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Wayne Loughridge, County Atty., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
HATCHER, Commissioner:
The appellant, Albert Lonzo Cantrell, and Janet Louise Weinman were charged in separate informations of the crime of burglary and larceny in connection with burglary. Their cases were consolidated at their request and they were tried jointly. They were found guilty; separate appeals were taken to this court, and the convictions were sustained. (State v. Cantrell, 201 Kan. 182, 440 P.2d 580; State v. Weinman, 201 Kan. 190, 440 P.2d 575.)
At the original trial an agent of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation was permitted to testify concerning a statement made to him by Janet Louise Weinman. The testimony was given with limiting instructions of the effect that it was not to be considered as binding on the appellant and would not be admissible as to the issues regarding him.
At the trial both the appellant and Janet Weinman took the witness stand and testified.
The appellant later filed a proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507 and has appealed to this court from certain adverse rulings.
Appellant first contends that it was error to permit the agent or the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to testify as to the statements made to him by Janet Weinman because it was hearsay as to appellant and tended to implicate him. Appellant cites Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, and Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100, in support of his contention.
The gist of the ruling in the Bruton case was to the effect that the admission of a codefendant's confession inculpating the accused violates the accused's right of cross-examination secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constituion fo the United States, notwithstanding instruction to the jury that the codefendant's confession must be disregarded in determining the accused's guilt or innocence.
The court further concluded in the Bruton case that the major reason underlying the constituional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
In the Roberts case it was held that the rule in the Bruton case was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that the ruling should be given retroactive application.
Neither the rule nor the reason for the rule has any application to the facts and circumstances presented for review in the instant case. In the case now before us for consideration the codefendant took the witness stand and gave the complaining defendant full opportunity to cross-examine.
It would appear that where the codefendant who made the statement or confession takes the witness stand, an opportunity to cross-examine exists for the other codefendant and the rule as to the right to confrontation is satisfied. (Rios-Ramirez v. United States, 9 Cir., 403 F.2d 1016; Lipscomb v. State, 5 Md.App. 500, 248 A. 491; People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Porter, 51704
...the witnesses. The rule of Bruton has been well recognized by this court. (State v. Greer, 202 Kan. 212, 447 P.2d 837; Cantrell v. State, 206 Kan. 323, 478 P.2d 192; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451, 502 P.2d See also State v. Rodriguez, 226 Kan. 558, 601 P.2d 686 (1979); State v. White & St......
-
State v. Hutchison
...confrontation and cross-examination is satisfied and rules excluding the statement of the codefendant do not apply. Cantrell v. State, 206 Kan. 323, 324, 478 P.2d 192 (1970), cert. denied 402 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 1390, 28 L.Ed.2d 663 (3) Editing may be proper when any suggestion of the codefe......
-
State v. Mims, 48244
...the witnesses. The rule of Bruton has been well recognized by this court. (State v. Greer, 202 Kan. 212, 447 P.2d 837; Cantrell v. State, 206 Kan. 323, 478 P.2d 192; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451, 502 P.2d 626.) The question remains, however, for us to determine whether the admission of h......
-
Delano v. State
...may not ordinarily be used for the purpose of reviewing trial errors that might have been considered in a direct appeal. (Cantrell v. State, 206 Kan. 323, 478 P.2d 192; Yurk v. State, 208 Kan. 946, 495 P.2d 87.) The record discloses no unusual or intervening changes in the law which prevent......