State v. Gibbs
| Decision Date | 07 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,989 |
| Citation | 105 Kan. 52,181 P. 569 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. T. J. GIBBS, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1919.
Appeal from Cowley district court; OLIVER P. FULLER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL TRIAL--Evidence in Chief Admitted on Rebuttal--Not Reversible Error. Ordinarily it is irregular and improper to permit the state, in a criminal prosecution, to introduce, as rebuttal, such evidence as properly pertains to the state's evidence in chief, but reversible error cannot be predicated thereon unless timely objection is made to the introduction of such evidence.
2. SAME. In a criminal prosecution, where the state fails to establish a prima facie case against the defendant by its evidence in chief, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict in his behalf; but where that is denied, and the defendant offers evidence in his own behalf, the trial court for good reason and in furtherance of justice, may permit the state to offer further evidence which properly pertained to the case in chief. (Crim. Code, § 227.)
W. L. Cunningham, and H. S. Hines, both of Arkansas City, for the appellant.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, J. K. Rankin, assistant attorney-general, and Ellis Fink, county attorney, for the appellee.
This demurrer and motion was filed at the conclusion of the introduction of the state's evidence in chief. It may be conceded that up to that point the state had not completely made out a prima facie case against this defendant, and if he had stood on that ruling, and had introduced no evidence in his own defense, the jury would have been bound to acquit him for want of proof (Crim. Code, § 228, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 8149); otherwise this court would order his discharge. But the defendant did not stand on that ruling; evidence was introduced for the defense; and on rebuttal, a codefendant took the witness stand and candidly told of the various thefts of poultry by the defendant and the witness and another person. This evidence made a hopeless predicament for defendant, and his conviction followed as a matter of course.
Defendant cites pertinent precedents to show that the introduction of this evidence on rebuttal was improper, and it certainly was improper. In many jurisdictions it would be fatal to the state's case. (State v. Christman, 32 N.D. 105 110, 111, 155 N.W. 26; Hardesty v. People, 52 Colo. 450, 121 P. 1023.) Even in this state, such an irregularity would be reversible error, if defendant had been denied an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willis, 59120
...admitted on rebuttal for the purpose of refuting defendant's claim.... The second is, that under our decisions (see The State v. Gibbs, 105 Kan. 52, 181 Pac. 569 [ (1919) ]; The State v. Abrams, 115 Kan. 520, 223 Pac. 301 [ (1924) ]; The State v. McReynolds, 118 Kan. 356, 360, 234 Pac. 975 ......
-
State v. Braun
... ... It has long been the law of Kansas that the granting of permission to the state to reopen its case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Wooden, 110 Kan. 315, 203 P. 722; State v. Gibbs, 105 Kan. 52, 181 P. 569. In State v. Benson, 207 Kan. 453, 485 P.2d 1266, it was held not to be prejudicial error to permit the introduction of the state's exhibits during the introduction[209 Kan. 189] of the state's evidence in rebuttal. In the case at bar the record discloses the testimony ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... 402; Ex parte Johnson, 6 ... Cal.App. 734, 93 P. 199.) ... It is ... discretionary with the trial court to reopen a case for the ... reception of additional evidence to establish venue. (Sec ... 8941, C. S.; 16 C. J., sec. 2190, p. 870, sec. 2191, p. 871; ... State v. Gibbs, 105 Kan. 52, 181 P. 569; People ... v. Kennedy, 48 Cal.App. 545, 192 P. 556; Froman v ... Commonwealth, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 948, 42 S.W. 728; ... State v. Murphy, 9 Nev. 394; State v ... Martin, 102 Miss. 165, 59 So. 7; Brooks v ... State, 12 Ga.App. 104, 76 S.E. 765; State v ... Waln, 14 ... ...
-
State v. Bean
...admitted on rebuttal for the purpose of refuting defendant's claim * * *. The second is, that under our decisions, (see State v. Gibbs, 105 Kan. 52, 181 P. 569; State v. Abrams, 115 Kan. 520, 223 P. 301; State v. McReynolds, 118 Kan. 356, 360, 234 P. 975; State v. Haines, 128 Kan. 475, 477,......