State v. Freeman
Decision Date | 07 March 1936 |
Docket Number | 32478-32480. |
Citation | 143 Kan. 315,55 P.2d 362 |
Parties | STATE v. FREEMAN. SAME v. EWING. SAME v. MOSER. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Act penalizing prohibiting anonymous publications criticizing candidate's personal character or political action held not invalid as containing more than one subject not clearly expressed in title (Rev.St.1923, 25--1714; Const. art. 2, § 16).
1913 act could not be attacked on ground of insufficiency of title after it was adopted in 1923 revision of statutes (Laws 1923 c. 144, § 1; Const. art. 2, § 16).
Act prohibiting anonymous publications criticizing candidate's personal character or political action held not to violate section of state bill of rights respecting liberty of press and libel (Rev.St.1923, 25--1714; Const.Bill of Rights, § 11).
State act prohibiting anonymous publications criticizing candidate's personal character or political action held not to violate constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress from abridging freedom of speech or of press (Rev.St.1923 25--1714; Const. U.S. Amend. 1).
Information for distributing anonymous circulars criticizing candidate held not quashable for failure to state that election was called or had at which alleged circular was distributed (Rev.St.1923, 25--1714, 62--1012).
Information for distributing anonymous circulars criticizing candidate alleging that offense was committed on, -- day of November 1934, held not quashable for failure to allege specific date (Rev.St.1923, 25--1714, 62--1006).
Circular criticizing candidate which stated that it was ordered and paid for by another candidate's friends, without disclosing their names, residences, or street numbers, violated statute prohibiting anonymous publications criticizing candidate (Rev.St.1923, 25--1714).
1. R.S. 25--1714, does not contravene section 16 of article 2, of the Constitution of the state of Kansas, nor section 11 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
2. A circular or poster alleged to have been distributed or posted in the course of a political campaign, examined, and held, not to comply with the requirements of R.S. 25--1714 prohibiting anonymous publications, criticizing personal character or political action of a candidate for public office.
3. Time is not an indispensable ingredient of an offense in violation of the provisions of R.S. 25--1714 and an information charging the commission of the offense on the -- day of November, 1934, is sufficiently definite.
4. Courts take judicial notice of general election laws, and the dates of general elections. The information in question was not fatally defective by reason of its failure to state an election was called and had, at which the alleged circular was distributed.
Appeals from District Court, Nemaha County; C. W. Ryan, Judge.
Proceedings by the State against R. E. Freeman, Melvin Ewing, and Fern Moser, respectively. From a ruling sustaining separate motions to quash the respective informations, the State appeals.
Reversed.
Lloyd S. Miller and W. E. Archer, both of Hiawatha, for appellees.
This is a consolidated appeal of three separate criminal actions. The prosecutions were all based on the same statute (R.S. 25--1714). The appeals all raise the correctness of the ruling sustaining separate motions to quash the respective informations. The slight difference in the separate informations will be referred to later. The motions to quash are similar and will be treated together. R.S. 25--1714 reads:
The information in each case was substantially the same, the only difference being that the words, "write, print," were omitted in the information in cases Nos. 32479 and 32480, and the information in case No. 32478 contained two counts, the second count being the same as the first, except that it charged R. E. Freeman caused the anonymous publication to be written, posted, and distributed.
to put 400 cu. yd. of gravel per mile free of charge to the county upon the road situated on the west line of Wetmore township between Bancroft and state Highway No. 9 that Lewis Hilt, County Commissioner of the First District, Nemaha County, entered my office and offered to put on 300 cu. yd. of gravel per mile but it would cost $100.00 cash in advance.
One of the grounds of the motions to quash was R.S. 25--1714 contravenes section 16 of article 2 of the Constitution of the state of Kansas in that it contains more than one subject not clearly expressed in the title. R.S. 25--1714 is a part of chapter 189, of the Laws of 1913. The title of that act is: "An Act relating to elections and amending general sections 3261, 3270, 3271, 3273, of the General Statutes of 1909, and providing additional safeguards for the protection of elections and providing penalties for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n
...decisions I am aware of, have upheld the laws. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Evans, 156 Pa.Super. 321, 40 A.2d 137 (1944); State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 55 P.2d 362 (1936); State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N.E. 525 (1922). 3. It might be accurate to say that, insofar as the judicially u......
-
People v. White
...State v. Babst (1922), 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N.E. 525; Commonwealth v. Evans (1944), 156 Pa.Super. 321, 40 A.2d 137; State v. Freeman (1936), 143 Kan. 315, 55 P.2d 362.) None of these decisions recognized any right to anonymous speech; the decisions in Freeman and Babst did not even recogni......
-
People v. Duryea
...statutes limited to personal attacks were upheld in Commonwealth v. Evans, 156 Pa.Super. 321, 40 A.2d 137 (1945) and in State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 55 P.2d 362 (1936).11 Similarly, there is nothing before this court to indicate the legislative purpose behind Section 457. The District At......
-
Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley JUdicial Dist., County of El Dorado
...parte Hawthorne, supra, 116 Fla. 608, 156 So. 619, 96 A.L.R. 572; State v. Babst, supra, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N.E. 525; State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 55 P.2d 362; Commonwealth v. Acquaviva, supra, 187 Pa.Super. 550, 145 A.2d 407; Commonwealth v. Evans, supra, 156 Pa.Super. 321, 40 A.2d 1......