Ingram v. State, 45801
| Decision Date | 07 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45801,45801 |
| Parties | Lawrence Eugene INGRAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A verdict may not be impeached by evidence with respect to the reasoning employed by the jury in reaching its decision or as to what may have influenced the mental processes of the jurors in arriving at their verdict.
2. A proceeding brought under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 for the purpose of challenging a judgment of conviction may not ordinarily be used as a substitute for a second appeal.
3. The record in a collateral action challenging a sentence imposed against one convicted of a felony is examined, and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held the trial court did not err in denying relief.
George E. Mallon, Kansas City, argued the cause, and James P. Nordstrom, Kansas City, with him on the brief, for appellant.
Nick A. Tomasic, Chief Deputy County Atty., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., and Frank D. Menghini, County Atty., with him on the brief, for appellee.
The petitioner, Lawrence Eugene Ingram, has appealed from a judgment denying relief in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507. This case has previously been before the court on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. Our decision in that case is reported in State v. Ingram, 198 Kan. 517, 426 P.2d 98.
In February, 1966, this petitioner was tried on charges of burglary and grand larceny. He was convicted on the larceny charge alone and was sentenced under the habitual criminal act. Subsequently, Ingram filed this action which attacks the validity of the sentence imposed against him. Following an evidentiary hearing at which the petition was personally present, the district court denied relief and the present appeal was then taken.
Although the petitioner has listed three points in his brief, they may be consolidated as follows: (1) The jury was guilty of misconduct resulting in a compromise verdict. (2) The jury was coerced into reaching a verdict through the means of a coercive or 'dynamite' instruction.
Four members of the jury which convicted the defendant were present and testified at the 60-1507 hearing. All were in agreement that from the beginning of the jury's deliberations, nine of the jurors were for conviction on both counts charged against the defendant while three were for acquittal, and that this division persisted until the final ballot was cast.
Each of the three jurors who initially voted for acquittal testified, without objection by the state, that they finally agreed to a verdict of guilty on the larceny charge, not because they believed the defendant was guilty, but because they felt that in case of a hung jury the defendant might be retried and found guilty of both charges. These three jurors characterized their verdict as a compromise and each professed to have believed Mr. Ingram innocent of both charges.
This court has long followed the rule that a juror may not impeach the verdict in which he himself joined by the giving of testimony as to the reasoning employed by the jury in reaching its decision or what may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Scotchel
...323 (1976); Hill v. State, 53 Ala.App. 23, 27, 296 So.2d 921 (1974); Smith v. State, 330 So.2d 59 (Fla.App.1976); Ingram v. State, 204 Kan. 836, 465 P.2d 925 (1970); State v. Credeur, 328 So.2d 59 (La.1976); People v. Riemersma, 104 Mich.App. 773, 306 N.W.2d 340 (1981); State v. Hoskins, 29......
-
State v. Mitchell, 55128
...by which it was determined." The purpose of this statute is to preserve the integrity and finality of jury verdicts. Ingram v. State, 204 Kan. 836, 837, 465 P.2d 925 (1970). Further, public policy forbids the questioning of a juror on the mental process used in reaching a verdict since "the......
-
State v. Taylor
...60-444; Kincaid v. Wade, supra; State v. Schroeder, 201 Kan. 811, 822, 443 P.2d 284.) . . .' (To the same effect, see Ingram v. State, 204 Kan. 836, 465 P.2d 925; State v. Morgan, 207 Kan. 581, 485 P.2d Here, Mrs. Londeen's testimony did not relate to extrinsic misconduct or to physical fac......
-
State v. Gee
...35 P.2d 1004 (1934).11 51 Utah 62, 70, 168 P. 548, 551 (1917).12 207 Kan. 581, 485 P.2d 1371, 1372 (1971).13 Also Ingram v. State, 204 Kan. 836, 465 P.2d 925, 926 (1970).14 See VIII Wigmore on Evidence, § 2348, pp. 566--567, wherein it is stated that the parol evidence rule applies to jury ......