State v. Dunkerton

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOPKINS, J.:
• Citation: State v. Dunkerton, 128 Kan. 374, 278 P. 57 (Kan. 1929)
• Decision Date: 08 June 1929
• Docket Number: 28,721
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSIE DUNKERTON, Appellant

278 P. 57

128 Kan. 374

THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSIE DUNKERTON, Appellant

No. 28,721

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 8, 1929

Decided January, 1929.

Appeal from Montgomery district court; JOSEPH W. HOLDREN, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Unlawful Possession--Evidence. In a prosecution for violation of the prohibitory liquor law, the record examined, and held: (a) The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. (b) It was not error to introduce evidence of other offenses of a similar nature committed under like circumstances.

2. CRIMINAL LAW--Trial--Argument to Jury--Discretion as to Time Allowed. The time allowed attorneys for argument of a case to the jury is ordinarily a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and error can be based thereon only by a showing of abuse of such discretion.

3. JURY--Selection. The calling of an equal number of men and women into the jury box by the clerk of the court for examination on their voir dire is not shown to have prejudiced the substantial rights of the defendant.

4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Generally. Complaint of various alleged errors considered and not sustained.

Dallas W. Knapp and Charles D. Ise, both of Coffeyville, for the appellant.

Warren B. Grant, county attorney, Richard L. Becker, assistant county attorney, and C. W. Mitchell, of Cherryvale, for the appellee.

OPINION

HOPKINS, J.:

The defendant appeals from a conviction of violating the prohibitory liquor law.

There was evidence showing substantially that she was conducting a hotel or rooming house in Coffeyville known as the Metropolitan hotel. Detectives or under-cover men, whose services were obtained by the authorities of Montgomery county, procured the evidence and testified against her. The evidence, which need not be detailed, was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

Complaint is made of the introduction of evidence showing a raid on defendant's premises more than a year previous to the offenses for which she was prosecuted in the instant case. It has been held that evidence of similar acts and offenses may be introduced to show the intentions, inclinations and tendencies of the defendant. (State v. King, 111 Kan. 140, 206 P. 883; State v. Bisagno, 121 Kan. 186, 246 P. 1001, and cases cited.) For example, evidence showing a person previously to have been in the possession of intoxicating liquor or to have been in charge of a place where intoxicating liquors are kept and stored, or a place where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors at other times than that charged in the information, tends to establish the inclinations and intentions of the accused. Therefore we are of the opinion the evidence was not only competent but was highly probative as bearing upon the guilt of the defendant of the present charges against her. She admitted that she is the Josie Dunkerton referred to in the cases of Fort Scott v. Dunkerton, 78 Kan. 189, 96 P. 50, and State v. Dunkerton, 103 Kan. 748, 175 P. 981; also, prosecutions for violation of the prohibitory-liquor law. See, also, State v. Smith, 113 Kan. 737, 216 P. 302; State v. Turner, 114 Kan. 721, 220 P. 254; State v. Hendren, 127 Kan. 497, 274 P. 274.

...