State v. Bednark
| Decision Date | 12 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41829,41829 |
| Citation | 187 Kan. 236,356 P.2d 848 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Dorothy Pauline Campbell BEDNARK, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Appellant's failure to comply with this court's rule No. 5 (183 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826) in not including in her abstract of record enough of the pleadings and the evidence to enable this court to arrive at a full understanding of the questions involved or a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered, precludes appellate review of trial errors and the appeal must be dismissed.
Hall Smith, William L. Rees and Wright W. Crummett, Topeka, were on the briefs for appellant.
John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., Adrian J. Allen, County Atty., and William R. Brady, Asst. County Atty., Topeka, on the briefs for appellee.
Defendant was charged on five counts of an information with grand larceny as defined by G.S.1957 Supp., 21-533, and was tried and convicted thereon. Thereafter, defendant perfected an appeal to this court from the order of the lower court overruling her motion for a new trial.
At the outset the question confronting this court is whether the defendant is entitled to be heard for the reason of defendant's utter failure to include in her very brief abstract the motion for a new trial or to set forth in her abstract any specification of error whatsoever. This court's rule No. 5 (183 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826), long in force and effect, among other things, provides that
We referred to this long-standing rule in Quick v. Purcell, 179 Kan. 319, 320, 295 P.2d 626, 627, stating:
'Its purpose is designed to promote definiteness, fairness and orderly procedure of litigation on appellate review.
It was intended to be of benefit to both the Bench and Bar alike. Specifically, its purpose is to advise both appellee and this court concerning error, or errors, which the appellant claims the trial court committed in rendering its judgment.
All that the abstract in the instant appeal contains is a narrated copy of the information, portions of an opening statement by counsel for the state, a discussion of a motion to discharge based upon the information and opening statement of the prosecution, and two pages of testimony. Neither the motion for a new trial nor the notice of appeal nor the specification of errors is set forth in the abstract, and this court is at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carpenter
...185 Kan. 101, 340 P.2d 390; 361 U.S. 920, 80 S.Ct. 265, 4 L.Ed.2d 188; State v. Combs, 186 Kan. 247, 350 P.2d 129; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 356 P.2d 848; State v. Armstrong, 188 Kan. 567, 363 P.2d 520; State v. Mize, 191 Kan. 129, 379 P.2d 317; State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 381 P.2d 3......
-
Blevins v. Daugherty, 41888
...the appeal is dismissed.' (Syl. pp 1, 2.) For a decision disclosing the above rule has application in criminal cases see State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 356 P.2d 848. Indeed the now definitely established rule of this jurisdiction is that where an appellant has made no attempt to conform to......
-
State v. Aeby
...185 Kan. 101, 340 P.2d 390, 361 U.S. 920, 80 S.Ct. 265, 4 L.Ed.2d 188; State v. Combs, 186 Kan. 247, 350 P.2d 129; State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 356 P.2d 848; State v. Armstrong, 188 Kan. 567, 363 P.2d 520, and State v. Mize, 191 Kan. 129, 379 P.2d Failure to comply with either or both of......
-
State v. Armstrong
...civil, to which we adhere. For more recent cases, where the rule has been stated and applied, see, e. g., (criminal cases) State v. Bednark, 187 Kan. 236, 356 P.2d 848; State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221, 356 P.2d 845; State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 356 P.2d 843; State v. Trinkle, 186 Kan. 809, 35......