State v. Crawford, 48788
| Decision Date | 05 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 48788,48788 |
| Citation | 223 Kan. 127,573 P.2d 982 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. James Edwin CRAWFORD, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The habitual criminal act, K.S.A. 21-4504, may be invoked whether the prior felonies committed by the defendant were punishable by confinement in the custody of the director of penal institutions or the secretary of corrections.
2. Upon appeal from convictions of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated robbery, and felony theft, the record is examined, various alleged errors are reviewed, and the conviction is affirmed.
Frederick B. Farmer, Olathe, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
G. Joseph Pierron, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen. and Dennis W. Moore, Dist. Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is a direct appeal by James Edwin Crawford, who was convicted by a jury of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated robbery, and theft of a motor vehicle valued at more than $50. Because defendant had prior convictions of rape and burglary (both within a few months of the date of the offenses here involved), sentences of not less than thirty years nor more than life, together with several other concurrent sentences, were imposed.
Crawford was positively identified by the victim and by a bus driver who saw him at the scene. Shortly after the offenses took place, Crawford was apprehended at the end of a high-speed chase when he wrecked the victim's automobile and was pinned inside. The victim, who was not previously acquainted with the defendant, gave detailed testimony as to each offense. In addition, the state presented extensive corroborating and circumstantial evidence. The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, and the two witnesses called in his behalf did not present evidence which raised substantial fact questions.
Defendant contends that (1) the verdict was not supported by sufficient or substantial evidence; (2) the trial court erred in receiving into evidence state's exhibit No. 15; (3) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on the lesser offenses of lewd and lascivious behavior; (4) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on the lesser included offenses of attempted aggravated robbery and attempted robbery; (5) the trial court erred in giving the jury an instruction on possession of recently stolen property; (6) the reference by the prosecutor to matters not in evidence, during closing argument, constituted reversible error; (7) a television interview of the district attorney was prejudicial; (8) a new trial should have been granted because of the trial errors enumerated above; and (9) the habitual criminal act was inapplicable because defendant had not previously been convicted of felonies, the punishment for which was confinement in the custody of the director of penal institutions. The record convinces us that none of the points raised has merit.
Judged by the applicable standards on appellate review, the evidence was sufficient to support each conviction. State v. Johnson, 222 Kan. 465, 565 P.2d 993; State v. Ames, 222 Kan. 88, 563 P.2d 1034; and State v. Childers, 222 Kan. 32, 563 P.2d 999.
Exhibit No. 15, a "rape kit" consisting of specimens taken by a physician at St. Luke's hospital, is attacked because the prosecution was unable to locate the nurse who carried the exhibit from the examination room to a waiting messenger in the hallway outside. The possibility that the exhibit was tampered with during this brief interval is remote. The trial court quite properly admitted the exhibit into evidence. Any deficiency in the chain of custody went to the exhibit's weight rather than its admissibility. State v. Watkins, 219...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sutherland, 82SA373
...to testify to the receipt and delivery of an evidence envelop in which a balloon containing heroin had been placed); State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 573 P.2d 982 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 930, 98 S.Ct. 1504, 55 L.Ed.2d 527 (1977) ("rape kit" was not inadmissible because the prosecutio......
-
State v. McQueen, s. 48790
...and set aside. The seventh point concerns the giving of an instruction on recent possession of stolen property. In State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 573 P.2d 982 (1977), this court held the giving of the instruction, while no longer favored, was not error under the facts and circumstances of......
-
State v. Gregg, 50511
...lewd and lascivious behavior under such circumstances. This precise issue as to aggravated sodomy was decided in State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 573 P.2d 982 (1977), Cert. denied 435 U.S. 930, 98 S.Ct. 1504, 55 L.Ed.2d 527 (1978), wherein this court said at 128, 573 P.2d at "Lewd and lasci......
-
State v. McGhee
...Any deficiency in the chain of custody should go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the evidence. State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 128, 573 P.2d 982 (1977), Cert. denied 435 U.S. 930, 98 S.Ct. 1504, 55 L.Ed.2d 527 (1978); State v. Watkins, 219 Kan. 81, 89, 547 P.2d 810 (1976)......