State v. Conway

Decision Date08 June 1895
Citation40 P. 661,55 Kan. 323
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS v. JAMES CONWAY
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Atchison District Court.

JAMES CONWAY, having been convicted of burglary and grand larceny appeals. The opinion herein, filed June 8, 1895, states the material facts.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

W. P Waggener, for appellant.

C. D Walker, county attorney, for The State.

JOHNSTON J. All Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

James Conway was convicted of the offenses of burglery and grand larceny, and the punishment adjudged was imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary for the term of six years. In his appeal he assigns the rulings of the court upon the instructions as error, and the transcript contains sufficient of the evidence to present the errors complained of. It is first contended that the refusal of several instructions that were requested upon the subject of circumstantial evidence was prejudicial error. While the charge of the court did not call special attention to circumstantial or any other particular kind of evidence, it is true that the instructions given were so broad and general as to cover all the testimony that was offered. In view of the fact, however, that the testimony was largely circumstantial, the court might properly have laid down the rules of law governing that class of evidence and thus have assisted the jury in correctly applying the law to the facts of the case. Whether the omission of this duty is of itself a sufficient ground for a reversal it is not important to decide. The principal complaint is based upon the charge of the court with respect to the defense of an alibi. Testimony was offered tending to show that the defendant was at another and different place when the crime was committed, and did not know of or participate in the same. The court refused to give an instruction to the effect that the defendant is not required to prove the defense of an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt to entitle him to an acquittal; that it is sufficient if the evidence upon that point raises a reasonable doubt of his presence at the time and place of the commission of the crime charged. The court in its general charge stated that some evidence had been given tending to show that the defendant was not present at the time the offense was committed, but was at his home, in bed, several miles away from the scene of the crime and knew nothing of it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Glass
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1915
    ...on the law of alibi is error. 14 Century Dig. col. 2574, § 1833, and cases cited; 12 Cyc. 619; Binns v. State, 46 Ind. 311; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; v. State, 5 Baxt. 662; State v. Powers, 72 Vt. 168, 47 A. 830; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 285; State v. Edwards, 10......
  • State v. Bogris
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1914
    ... ... 772, 79 P. 542; State v ... Deal, 41 Ore. 437, 70 P. 532.) ... If, by ... proof of an alibi, a defendant is able to raise a reasonable ... doubt as to his being at a certain place about the time in ... question he is entitled to an acquittal. ( State v ... Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; People v. Dick, ... 32 Cal. 213; State v. Mackey, 12 Ore. 154, 6 P. 648; ... State v. Porter, 74 Iowa 623, 38 N.W. 514; Deggs v ... State, 7 Tex. App. 359.) ... The ... judge must not charge the jury in respect to matters of fact, ... and, besides, ... ...
  • State v. Saunders
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1933
    ...83 N.J.L. 135, 83 A. 643; McKissack v. State, 16 Ala. App. 109, 75 So. 701; Beard v. State, 97 Tex. Crim. 393, 261 S.W. 780; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, 40 P. 661; Burns v. State, 75 Ohio St. 407, 79 929; People v. Garrett, 93 Cal.App. 77, 268 P. 1071; 16 C. J. 976 to 979, and 1058. This ......
  • State v. Skinner
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1972
    ...given on the elements of the crime charged and on the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (overruling State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323, Syl. 1, 40 P. 5. An instruction on circumstantial evidence is not required where there is substantial direct evidence of the guilt of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT