State v. Dodd
| Decision Date | 12 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 35606. |
| Citation | 131 P.2d 725,156 Kan. 52 |
| Parties | STATE v. DODD. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1943.
Syllabus by the Court.
It is not the function of Supreme Court to weigh the evidence or to pass upon credibility of witnesses, as that is for jury, and where there is any substantial competent evidence to support it, a verdict will not be disturbed on ground of insufficiency of evidence.
When recently stolen goods are found in possession of accused, his failure satisfactorily to explain his possession, where considered in connection with circumstances of the case will sustain a verdict on a proper charge.
Evidence supported conviction of stealing chickens in the nighttime.
Record in prosecution for stealing chickens in the nighttime failed to establish a lack of "due process of law" either under state laws and Constitution or under Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14.
1. The record examined in a criminal trial, and held, the trial court did not err in (a) denying defendant's motion to dismiss the action because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence or because of insufficiency of the evidence; (b) approving the verdict of the jury; (c) overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
2. The record further examined, and held, there was no lack of due process of law either under the Constitution and laws of the State of Kansas nor under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; Joseph W. Holdren Judge.
Jack Clarence Dodd was convicted of stealing chickens in the nighttime, and he appeals.
Jack Clarence Dodd, pro se.
Wallace Carpenter, Co. Atty., of Independence, and Harry Akers Deputy Co. Atty., of Coffeyville, for appellee.
Defendant was charged with the offense of stealing chickens in the nighttime. When he was arraigned it appeared he did not have counsel for his defense or means to procure any and the trial court thereupon appointed counsel to defend him. At a later date a trial was had resulting in a verdict of guilty. Defendant's motion for a new trial having been denied, he perfected an appeal to this court which he has prosecuted in his own behalf.
Appellant contends the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and that his motion to dismiss because of insufficiency of evidence should have been sustained. In the recent case of State v. Klein, 154 Kan. 165, loc. cit. 166, 117 P.2d 575, it was said: See also State v. Edwards, 151 Kan. 365, Syl. ¶ 3, 99 P.2d 836, and cases cited.
Under the rule stated we examine the evidence. Briefly stated it was shown that defendant and two companions, Morris and DeArmond, had been together during the evening of December 3 1941. About 11 o'clock p.m. they went to the home of Morris where defendant went into the house to procure taxi fare. DeArmond stayed in the back yard. The defendant and DeArmond left and started walking toward town. About 1:30 o'clock a.m., on December 4, 1941, two police cars approached them. While an officer was talking with DeArmond, defendant was seen to drop something on the sidewalk. It was found to be a black chicken with its neck broken. The defendant and DeArmond were taken to the police station, where somewhat later, under circumstances unnecessary to detail, another chicken was found. It was white and the head had been removed. On being questioned at the point of apprehension defendant denied he had ever seen the chicken. Later at the police station, he told the chief of police that it looked like he had got himself into a jam, and when asked where he got the chickens he said he was drunk and didn't know where he got...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oswald
...the case, including his failure satisfactorily to explain such possession, will sustain a conviction of burglary." See also State v. Dodd, 156 Kan. 52, 131 P.2d 725, where defendant was caught with a chicken under each arm before any theft of chickens had been reported to the Defendant next......
-
State v. Leigh
... ... 212, 214, ... 217 P. 309; State v. Emory, 116 Kan. 381, 385, 226 ... P. 754; State v. Miller, 127 Kan. 487, 274 P. 245; ... State v. Close, 130 Kan. 497, 287 P. 599; State ... v. Byrd, 130 Kan. 668, 674, 288 P. 551; State v ... Grey, 154 Kan. 442, 119 P.2d 468; State v ... Dodd, 156 Kan. 52, 54, 131 P.2d 725 ... Under ... the above rule, we are unable to say that the positive and ... uncontradicted testimony of Payne identifying the defendant ... as being in possession of the stolen car in an adjoining ... county within an hour or two after it was stolen ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...151 Kan. 365, 99 P.2d 836; State v. Klein, 154 Kan. 165, 117 P.2d 575; State v. Thomas, 155 Kan. 374, 125 P.2d 375; and State v. Dodd, 156 Kan. 52, 131 P.2d 725. Measured by the rule just announced it must be conceded, fact it cannot be denied, there was competent evidence from which the ju......
-
State v. Barnett
... ... This ... court cannot weigh evidence on appeal. See State v ... Brizendine, 114 Kan. 699, 220 P. 174; State v ... Harper, 137 Kan. 695, 22 P.2d 454; State v ... Wood, 145 Kan. 730, 67 P.2d 544; State v ... Thomas, 155 Kan. 374, 125 P.2d 375 and State v ... Dodd, 156 Kan. 52, 131 P.2d 725 ... The ... argument made on the question of whether a new trial should ... have been granted has been settled by what has been said ... already in this opinion ... The ... judgment of the trial court is affirmed ... SMITH, ... ...