State v. Brower
| Decision Date | 09 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | 14,909 |
| Citation | 75 Kan. 823,88 P. 884 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. D. M. BROWER |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1907.
Appeal from Edwards district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
C. C. Coleman, attorney-general, and John S. Dawson, assistant attorney-general, for The State.
F. Dumont Smith, for appellant.
The defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted of the offense of disturbing the peace and quiet of the prosecuting witness, and appeals to this court.
The sufficiency of the complaint was put in issue by a motion to quash. It is conceded that the offense is charged in the language of the statute defining the offense, but it is contended that this is not sufficient--that the particular facts and illegal acts should be charged, that the defendant may be the better enabled to prepare his defense. In some jurisdictions this has been held requisite, but in this state, especially since the decision in 1890 of The State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949, the practice of charging misdemeanors in the language of the statute which defines the offense has been recognized, and no considerable complaint thereof has been made. There may be cases in which the defendant might really be in doubt what act or acts of his were claimed to be in violation of law. Certainly this is not such a case, and herein, at least, we see no reason to depart from the practice approved in the Craddock case.
The only other question which seems to merit attention is the alleged misconduct of the county attorney in his argument. We cannot consider this question, as it was not presented on the motion for a new trial as the statute requires, there being no affidavit as to the facts. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 4754, 4757; Parrish v. Parrish, 67 Kan. 323, 72 P. 844.)
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hazen
...of a forged draft; State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315, 13 P. 560, murder; State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949 and State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, 88 P. 884, disturbing the peace; State v. Seely, 65 Kan. 69 P. 163, robbery; State v. Tinkler, 72 Kan. 262, 264, 83 P. 830, statutory rape; State......
-
State v. Stroble, 37818
...a charge, but this is not such a case. State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315, 13 P. 560; State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949; State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, 88 P. 884. Error is next assigned in the court's order overruling defendant's demurrer to the state's evidence and motion to dismiss on ......
-
State v. Ball
... ... pursue? It was to produce such proof orally or by affidavits ... in support of his motion for a new trial." ... (Civ ... Code, § 307.) ... This ... rule is the same in criminal as in civil cases. (Crim. Code, ... §§ 209, 219, 282; The State v. Brower, 75 ... Kan. 823, 824, 88 P. 884.) ... In ... The State v. Wellman, 102 Kan. 503, 512, 170 P ... 1052, it was said: ... "Complaint ... is made of the exclusion of evidence, but at the hearing of ... the motion for a new trial it was not produced. The section ... of the ... ...
-
State v. Pollman
... ... The matter ... was not of sufficient importance to furnish the basis for a ... serious claim of error; besides, it was not urged as a ground ... for the motion asking a new trial. For that reason it cannot ... be considered. (The State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, ... 88 P. 884.) ... The ... appellant had attempted to show by the makers of some of the ... forged notes that they were on intimate and friendly terms ... with him; that he had represented them in business; that he ... had indorsed checks for them in order to give them ... ...