Pyle v. Amrine
| Decision Date | 10 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | 35496. |
| Citation | 156 P.2d 509,159 Kan. 458 |
| Parties | PYLE v. AMRINE, Warden. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1945.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the petitioner had been convicted of murder and robbery by the knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecuting officers and that the prosecuting officers had suppressed evidence favorable to petitioner, an allegation that a person was coerced into making a statement unfavorable to defendant and that at the trial a witness testified to a conversation between the person who was alleged to have been coerced and the defendant, this conversation being entirely distinct from the statement alleged to have been obtained by coercion does not state any ground for relief.
2. In an action such as that described in the foregoing paragraph of the syllabus, an allegation that a witness gave perjured testimony without an allegation that the officers in charge of the prosecution knew it was perjured does not state any ground for relief.
3. In a criminal prosecution, the county attorney or his assistant the attorney general or his assistant, or a special prosecutor for that particular case is charged with the duty of presenting the evidence to the jury and deciding what evidence shall be presented.
4. In a proceeding such as that described in the first paragraph of this syllabus, an allegation that some officer who took part in the investigation knew about some evidence beneficial to the defendant without any allegation that this knowledge was brought to the attention of the officers in charge of the prosecution does not state any ground for relief.
5. In a proceeding such as that described in the first paragraph of this syllabus where the petitioner was directed to make his petition more definite and certain in certain particulars the amended petition is examined and it is held that the petitioner has not complied with the order in that respect.
Arthur H. Snyder, of Hutchinson, for petitioner.
Carl A Ballweg, Asst. Atty. Gen. (A. B. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
This is an original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus. The question with which we are immediately concerned is whether or not a motion of the respondent to dismiss the petition because petitioner has not complied with our order heretofore made to make the petition more definite and certain in certain particulars should be sustained. Various phases of this litigation have been before us in the past--once when the petitioner's conviction for murder and robbery was affirmed. See State v. Pyle, 143 Kan. 772, 57 P.2d 93. It was here again when an order of the District Court of Leavenworth county dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed in a per curiam opinion. See In re Pyle, 153 Kan. 568, 112 P.2d 354. Later, on December 11 1941, we made an order permitting Pyle to file an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court. On the same day we made another order denying the petition. We later denied a rehearing. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States a writ of certiorari was allowed. In the case of Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed our order dismissing the original application of Harry Pyle for a writ of habeas corpus and directed us to proceed to hear it.
In the opinion the court pointed out that the application for a writ had alleged that petitioner's imprisonment was the result of his being deprived of rights guaranteed him by the constitution of the United States in that the prosecuting authorities in the Kansas court had obtained his conviction by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured and by the suppression of testimony favorable to him. The court pointed out certain statements in the abstract which substantiated these charges and referred to exhibits accompanying the application wherein witnesses at the trial had made affidavits after the trial that their testimony used at the trial was prejured. The court pointed out that no return had been made to the application for a writ in this court and that the allegations of the application were nowhere refuted or denied in the record. The court held that if these allegations were true they entitled petitioner to release from his present custody. Amongst other things the court said:
'In view of petitioner's inexpert draftsmanship, we of course do not foreclose any procedure designed to achieve more particularity in petitioner's allegations and assertions.'
The mandate reached us January 14, 1943. In conformity with the statement just quoted and on motion of the respondent we ordered petitioner to make his petition more definite and certain. On December 23rd the petitioner asked us to appoint Mr. Arthur H. Snyder of Hutchinson as his counsel. On February 21, 1943, we did appoint Mr. Snyder. On February 26, 1943, we were advised by letter from Mr. Arthur H. Snyder that he accepted the appointment upon the condition that he would aid Mr. Walter Bullock of Dodge City, Kan., who was to be senior counsel. In fairness to all parties it should be noted that on March 9, 1945, Mr. Walter Bullock, of Dodge City, wrote the Chief Justice from there and spoke of the difficulty he was having obtaining certain transcripts, being that of the trial of State v. Hudson and also the transcript of Otto Chadd v. The Board of County Commissioners of Stafford county. On March 6, 1943, Mr. Arthur H. Snyder wrote the Chief Justice to the same effect. He spoke of the transcript in the cases of State v. Richardson and State v. Hudson and State v. Pyle. He spoke of the fact that Harry Pyle had no means with which to buy these transcripts and of its being necessary for him to have them before he could draw an amended petition. On April 20, 1943, our Chief Justice addressed a letter to petitioner, Mr. Walter Bullock and Mr. Arthur H. Snyder, in which he called attention to the fact that nothing had been filed in response to our order of February 1st and stating that it seemed to him that sufficient time had been given to prepare the amended petition and urged them to get this matter attended to so the matter might proceed without delay. It does not appear in this record, but this court is aware of the fact that Mr. Walter Bullock was ill for sometime about this time and that he subsequently died.
At any rate, Mr. Bullock for the petitioner filed in this court on May 22, 1943, an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in attempted compliance with our order. In this petition he referred to certain court files as follows:
These exhibits were none of them attached to the amended petition. Since they were court files, however, we have sent to the clerks of the courts for them and they have been sent in to us. We have Exhibit A. It is a part of the transcript in the case of State v. Harry Pyle. We have the files in the case of State v. Pyle, being Exhibit B, including the transcript. We do not have the files in the case of State v. Murl Hudson being Exhibit C, but we do have the transcript in that case. Exhibit D is an application for a writ of habeas corpus for Harry Pyle. That has been sent to us and it appears that the writ was not finally issued because Pyle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Poulos
...a defendant against being taken by surprise at the trial. (State v. Eidson, 143 Kan. 300, 54 P.2d 977, 55 P.2d 1050; Pyle v. Amrine, 159 Kan. 458, 156 P.2d 509.) A situation comparable to the one presented here was before this court in State v. Thomas, supra. In that case we 'In a criminal ......
-
Application of Landeros
...to note that when the case, under the name of Pyle v. Amrine, was finally disposed of by the Kansas Supreme Court, 1945, 159 Kan. 458, 156 P.2d 509, at page 518 that court said: "In the absence of allegations amounting to bad faith or willful oppression in office we would be loath to hold t......
- Thompson v. Osawatomie Pub. Co.
-
State v. Robertson, 45401
...a defendant to prevent surprise and give him an opportunity to examine the witnesses for the state in advance of trial. (Pyle v. Amrine, 159 Kan. 458, 474, 156 P.2d 509.) In the present case the two witnesses endorsed late were accomplices who took part in the crime. The defendant had issue......