State v. Dill, 40715

• Decision Date: 07 December 1957
• Docket Number: No. 40715,40715
• Citation: 319 P.2d 172,182 Kan. 174
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edwin DILL, Sr., Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 172

319 P.2d 172

182 Kan. 174

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edwin DILL, Sr., Appellant.

No. 40715.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 7, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court

Record examined in a criminal prosecution in which a verdict of guilty was returned on two counts of an information, and held: That the evidence--direct and circumstantial--when considered in its entirety was sufficient to establish all the essential elements of the crimes of which the defendant was found guilty, and the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty.

Donald C. Vosburgh, Fredonia, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.

Harry L. Depew, County Atty., Fredonia, argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.

WERTZ, Justice.

Defendant (appellant), Edwin Dill, Sr., was charged, tried and convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the provisions of G.S.1949, 8-530, and of illegal transportation of an open bottle of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the provisions of G.S.1949, 41-804. At the conclusion of the state's evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty and for his discharge on the ground that the evidence produced did not prove either charge. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling this motion. Defendant elected to stand on the court's ruling and offered no evidence. The case was submitted to the jury on instructions to which there was no complaint. The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

We will examine the record to determine whether there is an entire absence of substantial evidence proving or tending to prove the essential elements of the crimes charged. If from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence the jury might have reasonably drawn an inference of guilt, defendant's motion for discharge was then properly overruled and the verdict of guilty will not be disturbed. State v. Long, 148 Kan. 47, 79 P.2d 837; State v. McCoy, 160 Kan. 150, 160 P.2d 238; State v. Osburn, 171 Kan. 330, 232 P.2d 451; State v. Haught, 180 Kan. 96, 100, 299 P.2d 573. In State v. Goetz, 171 Kan. 703, 704, 237 P.2d 246, we stated that if the evidence tended to disclose that the effense charged was committed and the defendant committed it, the question was for the jury to decide, even though the evidence was weak.

It must also be kept in mind that in criminal prosecutions any of the essential elements of the crime charged may be proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Rhoten, 174 Kan. 394, 398, 257 P.2d 141; State v. Ragland, 170 Kan. 346, 349, 226 P.2d 251; State v. Hupp, 154 Kan. 410, 118 P.2d 579.

Moreover, the established rule in a circumstantial case is that it is the function of this court, as well as of the trial court, to find whether there is a basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt. State v. Mitchell, 181 Kan. 193, 196, 310 P.2d 1063, and cases therein cited.

A brief resume of the state's evidence follows. Mr. Snavley, a farmer living east of Neodesha, observed an automobile parked on Highway K-37 and reported it to the Neodesha police, who, in turn, notified the sheriff of the county. The police and the undersheriff arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. Snavley testified that the car had been stopped in the middle of the highway, with the front end extending over the center line, headed in a southwesterly direction. Car tracks disclosed that the car had gone off the slab and then back onto the highway and had...