Hamlin v. State
Decision Date | 07 November 1903 |
Docket Number | 13,399,13,178 |
Citation | 74 P. 242,67 Kan. 724 |
Parties | TOLBERT HAMLIN v. THE STATE OF KANSAS |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1903.
Error from Barber district court; P. B. GILLETT, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CORAM NOBIS--When Not Available. A writ of error coram nobis is not available to review an adjudicated issue of fact where the error, if any, was open to correction upon a motion for a new trial or upon appeal to a higher court.
2. CORAM NOBIS--False Statements by Jurors Insufficient. The writ will not lie from a decision in a criminal prosecution holding members of a jury to be qualified, although it is alleged that the jurors made false statements as to their qualifications, and also that defendant had no knowledge of their prejudice against him until long after the motion for a new trial had been made and overruled.
G. M Martin, C. W. Ellis, and W. W. S. Snoddy & Son, for plaintiff in error.
C. C. Coleman, attorney-general, Samuel Griffin, and Noble & Tincher, for The State.
OPINION
These proceedings were brought to obtain a review of a ruling of the district court refusing an application for a writ of error coram nobis. On May 17, 1901, Tolbert Hamlin was convicted upon a charge of statutory rape and the sentence imposed was imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years. Upon an appeal to this court the judgment of conviction was affirmed. (The State v. Hamlin, 64 Kan. 888, 68 P. 1133.)
In his petition for the writ he alleged that two members of the jury that found him guilty stated upon their voir dire that they had not formed or expressed an opinion on the merits of the case and had no prejudice against him. There was a further statement that he believed that they swore falsely in that examination, as they had formed and expressed an opinion which was adverse to the defendant, and had stated in substance that defendant ought to be hung for the crime with which he was charged. There was a further averment that he had no knowledge or means of knowing that these jurors were prejudiced against him until four months after the conviction, when he learned of it. The trial court rightly held that the averments of the defendant, accepted as true, did not entitle him to the extraordinary remedy sought.
Coram nobis is available as a remedy in this state, but not to the extent that it was at common law. The code specifically provides for the correction of errors in the trial court, and any errors or matters which may be corrected on motion in that court, or upon appeal in this court, cannot be made the grounds of an application for a writ of coram nobis. It was said in Asbell v. The State, 62 Kan. 209, 212, 61 P. 690:
The qualification of jurors was one of the matters which was tried and adjudicated in the district court; and the rulings of trial courts on these questions are frequently the subjects of review in this court. The qualification of the two jurors alleged to have been disqualified was considered by the trial court and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lamb v. State
...also, State v. Stanley, 125 S.W. 475, 225 Mo. 525; Howard v. State, 24 S.W. 8, 58 Ark. 229; Wheeler v. State, 158 Ind. 687; Hamlin v. State, 74 P. 242, 67 Kan. 724. Where error was in the judgment itself (State v. Stanley, 225 Mo. 525, 125 S.W. 475), or to contradict an adjudicated fact (Ho......
-
Nickels v. State
... ... error coram nobis, see Fugate v. State, 85 Miss. 94, ... 37 So. 554, 107 Am. St. Rep. 268, 3 Ann. Cas. 326; ... Wheeler v. State, 158 Ind. 687, 63 N.E. 975; ... Holt v. State, 78 Miss. 631, 29 So. 527; Dobbs ... v. State, 63 Kan. 321, 65 P. 658; Hamlin v ... State, 67 Kan. 724, 74 P. 242; Collins v ... State, 66 Kan. 201, 71 P. 251, 60 L. R. A. 572, 97 Am ... St. Rep. 361; Collins v. Mitchell, 5 Fla. 364; ... Hawie v. State, 121 Miss. 197, 83 So. 158, 10 A. L ... R. 205; 2 R. C. L. 307; 3 C.J. 201, note (b); 16 C.J. 1326; ... Bigham v ... ...
-
Alexander v. State
...unvarying test of the writ coram nobis is mistake or lack of knowledge of facts inhering in the judgment itself." See also Hamlin v. State, 67 Kan. 724, 74 P. 242; Dobbs v. State, 63 Kan. 321, 65 P. 658; Holt State, 78 Miss. 631, 29 So. 527. On the authority of the cases above cited and man......
-
Gibson v. Enright
... ... of error coram nobis impliedly included in or consistent with ... the Code of Civil Procedure in this state? In a single ... instance it has been successfully invoked in a criminal case ... and the trial court's allowance of the writ affirmed ... State ... 408; ... Dobbs v. State, 63 Kan. 321, 65 P. 658; Collins ... v. State, 66 Kan. 201, 71 P. 251, 252, 60 L.R.A. 572, 97 ... Am.St.Rep. 361; Hamlin v. State, 67 Kan. 724, 74 P ... 242; State v. Choquette, 109 Kan. 780, 202 P. 68; ... State v. Ray, 111 Kan. 350, 207 P. 192 ... No ... ...