State v. Burwell
Decision Date | 07 November 1885 |
Citation | 34 Kan. 312,8 P. 470 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JAMES E. BURWELL |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Norton District Court.
AT the April Term, 1885, the defendant Burwell was found guilty of wounding under such circumstances as would constitute manslaughter in the fourth degree, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year, and to pay the costs of the prosecution. He appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.
Judgement reversed and remanded.
Louis K. Pratt, for appellant.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
OPINION
On March 25, 1885, a criminal information was filed by the county attorney of Norton county, which information, omitting the caption and verification, reads as follows:
On April 7, 1885, the defendant caused a subpena to be issued, requiring W. A. McKinney, who resided in Norton county, to attend at the next term of the district court, which was to begin on April 13, 1885, and give testimony as a witness on behalf of the defendant. By mistake of the officer, this subpena was served on the wrong person. On April 9, 1885, the defendant caused another subpena to be issued for McKinney, which was served at his usual place of residence, and not on him personally. On April 13, 1885, the defendant caused another subpena to be issued for McKinney. On the same day the case was called for trial. The last subpena had not yet been returned, and the witness was not present. The defendant therefore moved for a continuance to some subsequent day of the term, or to the next term, and supported his motion by an affidavit; but the court held that the affidavit was not sufficient, and overruled the motion. The case was then tried on April 13 to 15, 1885, and on the last day mentioned the jury returned the following verdict, omitting the title and signature:
"We, the jury duly impaneled and sworn in the above-entitled action, do find from the law and the evidence, the defendant James E. Burwell guilty of wounding W. A. Johnson in the manner charged in the information herein filed, under circumstances which would have constituted manslaughter in the fourth degree if death had ensued from said wounding."
The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, setting forth numerous grounds therefor, and in support of one of such grounds offered to prove by the testimony of the foreman of the jury that he, the foreman, was "misled and deceived by the form of the verdict, and would not have signed it had he known its real meaning;" but the court refused to permit such testimony to be introduced, and overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment against the defendant, sentencing him to confinement and hard labor in the penitentiary for the term of one year, and for costs. To reverse this judgment the defendant now appeals to this court.
We think the court below erred in refusing to grant a continuance. The absent witness resided in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Way
... ... circumstances, and that the defendant was not in direct and ... express terms charged with having bet upon anything. A ... conviction may always be had upon any less offense which is ... included within that charged (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 5564); ... or, as was said in The State v. Burwell, 34 Kan ... 312, 8 P. 470, "wherever a person is charged upon ... information with the commission of an offense under one ... section of the statutes, and the offense as thus charged ... includes another offense under another section of the ... statutes, the defendant may be found guilty of ... ...
-
Coil v. State
... ... comprehend the instructions of the court." A juryman ... will not be permitted to testify that he was misled by the ... form of the verdict and [62 Neb. 29] would not have signed it ... had he known its real meaning. State v. Burwell, 34 ... Kan. 312, 8 P. 470. Affidavits of jurors as to their ... understanding of the verdict they rendered or were to render, ... can not have the effect to impeach their verdict. United ... States v. Daubner, 17 F. 793. A juror will not be ... allowed to impeach his verdict by his affidavit ... ...
-
Coil v. State
...to testify that he was misled by the form of the verdict, and would not have signed it had he known its real meaning. State v. Burwell, 34 Kan. 312, 8 Pac. 470. Affidavits of jurors as to their understanding of the verdict they rendered or were to render cannot have the effect to impeach th......
-
State v. Ingalls
... ... allow time for the juror to recover from his illness ... The ... affidavit was presented for the purpose of impeaching the ... verdict. That could not be done. (The State v ... Clark, 34 Kan. 289, 8 P. 528; The State v ... Burwell, 34 Kan. 312; 8 P. 470; L. & W. Rly. Co ... v. Anderson, 41 Kan. 528, 21 P. 588; The State v ... Plum, 49 Kan. 679, 684, 31 P. 308; The State v ... Keehn, 85 Kan. 765, 118 P. 851; The State v ... Taylor, 90 Kan. 438, 446; 133 P. 861; Jones v ... Webber, 111 Kan. 650, 652, 207 P. 837.) ... ...