State v. Buffington
| Decision Date | 11 April 1903 |
| Docket Number | 13,411 |
| Citation | 72 P. 213,66 Kan. 706 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GEORGE M. BUFFINGTON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1903.
Appeal from Ellsworth district court; R. F. THOMPSON, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE -- Homicide -- Instructions to Jury. In a prosecution for murder, where the defense is self-defense and there is some substantial evidence that would tend to mitigate the homicide to manslaughter, however weak and inconclusive such evidence may appear to the court, it is error to refuse to instruct the jury concerning manslaughter.
C. C. Coleman, attorney-general, Dallas Grover, county attorney, and G. F. Grattan, for The State.
Charles J. Evans, and Ira E. Lloyd, for appellant.
BURCH, J., not sitting.
OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. The court refused the request of the defendant to instruct the jury in the law of any of the degrees of manslaughter, and over the objection of the defendant gave the following instruction:
"If you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree, as I have defined it, committed in the manner charged in the information upon the person of said Oda Miller, and at the time and place therein named, then you should return a verdict against the defendant of murder in the second degree, but if you do not so find, then you should acquit the defendant."
The refusal to instruct upon the crime of manslaughter and the giving of the foregoing instruction are the principal errors complained of by appellant.
The following are the material facts: At the time of the homicide the appellant was a farmer, living with his wife and three grown daughters, and possibly a grown son, on a farm in Ellsworth county. It appears that for twelve years prior to the homicide he had been suffering from catarrh of the stomach and other chronic ills. He was fifty-three years of age, and by reason of his disease was unable to perform manual labor. During the harvest of July, 1902, he had in his employ Ed. Knight, John Strong, Ed. Shepard, Charles McComb, Oda Miller, and his son, Walter Buffington, and his son-in-law, Arnold Johnson. Johnson was his foreman and manager. His daughter Emma made out the time-slips, gave them to the men, and placed such account on a book, from which the appellant made his settlements.
On the evening of July 15, 1902, after these time-slips had been given the men, and while all were at supper, the appellant told the men that he desired to settle with them that evening, as he intended going away early next morning for medical treatment. After he had finished his meal, and while most of the men were at the supper table, he went into a room in his residence which was used by him as a bedroom and office. Soon thereafter Ed. Shepard, one of the hands, followed for the purpose of settling.
It appears that there was a difference of a fourth of a day between the time of these men as kept by the young lady and that claimed by the men, or at least some of them. This difference was being talked over between the appellant and Shepard when a statement was made by Shepard that the men claimed this extra time. When asked "Who?" he replied, "Myself, McComb, and Oda Miller." To this the appellant said: "Miller is the last man I would pay that, because he has shirked." This remark was made in a tone of voice so loud that Miller, who at the time was at the supper table, heard it, and, coming into the room where appellant and Shepard were, said: Shepard then walked over to Miller and said: "Leave the old man alone; we can settle this without any trouble." The appellant testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong
...is, then the question of such degree should be submitted to the jury. State v. Clark, 214 Kan. at 299, 521 P.2d 298; State v. Buffington, 66 Kan. 706, 72 Pac. 213 (1903). There is no question second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder. All of the elements of se......
-
State v. Hill
...and consists solely of the testimony of the defendant. State v. Staab, 230 Kan. 329, 339, 635 P.2d 257 (1981). In State v. Buffington, 66 Kan. 706, 710, 72 Pac. 213 (1903), this court "The unsupported testimony of the defendant alone, if tending to establish such inferior degree, is suffici......
-
Martin v. State
... ... should be submitted to, and left for the determination of the ... jury. The unsupported testimony of the defendant alone if ... tending to establish such inferior degree, is sufficient to ... require the court to so instruct." State v ... Buffington, 66 Kan. 706, 72 P. 213 ... "In ... the prosecution for murder whatever grades of the crime ... defendant's testimony may tend to prove should be ... governed by appropriate instructions, although his evidence ... may not be true." State v. Richardson, 92 S.W ... 649, 194 Mo. 326 ... ...
-
State v. Johnson, 48242
...of the evidence submitted to the jury. . . .' (p. 431, 243 P. p. 1006.) The reason for the rule was set out in the case of State v. Buffington, 66 Kan. 706, 72 P. 213: 'The defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to have the court instruct the jury in the law applicable to his conte......