State v. Falk
| Decision Date | 06 June 1891 |
| Citation | 46 Kan. 498,26 P. 1023 |
| Parties | STATE v. FALK. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
1. Where the defendant filed a plea in abatement to an information wherein he was charged with violating the prohibitory law, upon the ground (1) that he was informed against as Rheinhardt Valk, when his true name was Rheinhardt Falk; (2) that the information was not founded upon any information or knowledge of the county attorney, when he verified the same; and there was a hearing upon the plea and the same was sustained as to certain counts and overruled as to others; and the defendant afterwards was arraigned and entered the plea of not guilty, and was tried upon the counts in the information to which the plea in abatement had been overruled, and found guilty, — held, that no error was committed.
2. When a plea in abatement has been sustained as to certain counts in an information, it is not proper for the state to ask a conviction upon any of such counts; and, when an election is made in writing, at the close of the evidence upon the part of the state, it cannot modify such election after all the evidence is admitted.
3. Where the court has instructed the jury properly, but omits some matter which might with propriety, have been given, no substantial error is committed, unless the court has been requested to instruct with reference to such matter. State v. Peterson, 38 Kan. 204, 16 P. 263 followed.
4. It is not error, in a criminal case, for the trial court to receive the evidence of a witness, notwithstanding the fact that he has violated an order of the court to remain outside of the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. He may be punished for disobeying a rule of the court, but the state or the defendant should not be deprived of his evidence.
Commissioners’ decision. Appeal from district court, Wyandotte county; O. L. MILLER, Judge.
W. E. Brown, for appellant.
L. B. Kellogg, Atty. Gen., and Winfield Freeman, for the State.
The appellant was charged, in an information containing 60 counts, with violating the prohibitory law in Wyandotte county. A plea in abatement was filed and sustained, except as to the first 14 counts in the information. The defendant was afterwards arraigned, and entered the plea of not guilty, and was tried and convicted on 14 counts.
1. The appellant claims that the court erred in overruling in part his plea in abatement, and assigns as a reason that the information did not state his name correctly; that it purported to inform against Rheinhardt Valk while his name was Rheinhardt Falk. We fail to see wherein the defendant was prejudiced by the ruling of the court. After the plea in abatement had been heard, he was proceeded against by the name of Reinhardt Falk, and by that name was tried and convicted, and no substantial error was committed. Other objections are urged against the information,— that it nowhere showed who had knowledge of any of the offenses charged; that it was not supported by the oath or affirmation of any one, and no statement of any witness was filed with the information. All of these objections were waived by the defendant in pleading not guilty. No motion was made to quash the warrant or information. State v. Allison, 44 Kan. —, 24 P. 964; State v. Ash, 44 Kan. 84 24 P. 72; State v. Jessup, 42 Kan. 422, 22 P. 627. Besides, we cannot say, from the record before us, that the testimony of the witnesses was not filed. The recitals in the record would indicate that the evidence was filed with the information. The certificate of the clerk of the district court simply states that the record contains the evidence, proceedings, and verdict. We cannot say, from this certificate, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cantrell
...P.2d 136 (1970); State v. Trotter, 203 Kan. 31, 453 P.2d 93 (1969); Barber v. Emery, 101 Kan. 314, 167 P. 1044 (1917); State v. Falk, 46 Kan. 498, 26 P. 1023 (1891); Davenport v. Ogg, 15 Kan. 363 (1875). We find no abuse of discretion in the court's Before leaving this point, however, we pa......
-
State ex rel. Harvey v. Newton
... ... into court and asks time to answer, and enters into a ... recognizance to appear and abide by the decision of the ... court, he waives all objections as to the manner of being ... brought into court. People v. Pearson, 4 Ill. 270, 3 ... Scam. 270. In State v. Falk, 46 Kan. 498, 26 P ... 1023, the record shows that the information no where shows ... who had knowledge of any of the offenses charged, and that it ... was not supported by oath or affirmation of any one, and that ... no statement of any witness was filed with the information ... No motion ... ...
-
Hamilton v. The Atchison
... ... This rule ... has been followed so long, and declared so often, that it ... seems useless to cite authorities. (The State v ... Ingram, 16 Kan. 14; The State v. Rhea, 25 Kan ... 576, 577, 581; Douglass v. Geiler, 32 Kan. 499, 501, ... 4 P. 1039; The State v ... 204, 211, 16 P. 263; The State v. Rook, 42 Kan. 419, ... 421, 22 P. 626; Phinney v. Bronson, 43 Kan. 451, ... 454, 23 P. 624; The State v. Falk, 46 Kan. 498, 500, ... 26 P. 1023; Hoyt v. Dengler, 54 Kan. 309, 38 P ... (5) It ... is next argued that the verdict was a quotient ... ...
-
State v. Trotter
...witness, in violation of the court's order that all witnesses remain separated. (State v. Smit, 184 Kan. 582, 337 P.2d 680; State v. Falk, 46 Kan. 498, 26 P. 1023; Anno. 14 A.L.R.3d We have examined the court's instructions in each of the trials and defendant's contentions that certain of t......