State v. Coggins

• Decision Date: 17 September 1900
• Docket Number: 660
• Citation: 62 P. 247,10 Kan.App. 455
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. PATRICK COGGINS
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

62 P. 247

10 Kan.App. 455

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. PATRICK COGGINS

No. 660

Court of Appeals of Kansas

September 17, 1900

Decided September, 1900.

Appeal from Cherokee district court; A. H. SKIDMORE, judge.

Judgment of district court affirmed.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW -- Misdemeanor -- Amendment of Information. Amendments to an information charging several misdemeanors, made by leave of the court, prior to the trial of the action, held proper, within the provisions of section 72 of the criminal code. (Gen. Stat 1897, ch. 102, § 93; Gen. Stat. 1899, § 5321.)

2. -- Motion to Quash Information -- Postponement of Trial. An oral application for a two days' postponement of the trial, made after the overruling of the motion to quash the information, which had been on file for about two weeks prior to such application, held, not error.

3. -- Intoxicating Liquors -- Inspection by Jury -- Error Cured. Error of the court in permitting the jurors to examine and smell of the contents of two bottles, which witnesses testified contained whisky they had purchased from the defendant, held, not ground for reversal, where the court instructed the jury that they should wholly disregard the information and knowledge thus received. (The State v. Reynolds, 5 Kan.App. 515, 47 P. 573.)

4. -- Knowledge of Prosecuting Witness -- Instructions. Action of the trial court in giving and refusing instructions concerning notice or knowledge on the part of the prosecuting witness, who verified the information and who was not called as a witness at the trial, respecting the transactions upon which the verdict of the jury is founded, held, not error.

W. J. Moore, N. T. Allison, and Chas. Stevens, county attorney, for The State.

Heaton & Skidmore, for appellant.

OPINION

MILTON, J.:

In this case Patrick Coggins was convicted upon each of the eleven counts of an information charging violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and was given the minimum sentence upon each count. He appeals, and alleges numerous errors of the trial court.

The first alleged error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the defendant's motion to quash the information and in permitting the same to be amended, and in overruling the motion to strike the amended petition from the files. We think the amendments allowed were proper, within the provisions of section 72 of the criminal code (Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 102, § 93; Gen. Stat. 1899, § 5321), and that the amended information was good as against the motion to quash.

Complaint is made of the refusal of the court to grant the defendant's request, made immediately after the overruling of the motion to quash the information, for a two days' postponement of the trial. The application for the postponement was orally made, the ground therefor as stated being that the defendant desired time to prepare for his defense. The information had been on file for about two weeks before the trial took place. The statute provides that no amendment of an information shall cause any delay of the trial unless for good cause, shown by affidavit. The record shows that the defendant did not offer any evidence in his own behalf on the trial of the case. From the foregoing it is evident that the court did not abuse its discretion in requiring an immediate trial.

It is contended that the court erred in permitting the jurors to examine and smell of the contents of two bottles which witnesses testified contained whisky which they had purchased from the defendant. In this matter the court erred. (The State v. Lindgrove, 1 Kan.App. 51, 41 P. 688; The State v. Eldred, 8 Kan.App. 625, ...