State v. Hanrahan
| Citation | 49 S.D. 434,207 N.W. 224 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 5866.,5866. |
| Parties | STATE v. HANRAHAN. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Beadle County; N. D. Burch, Judge.
John Hanrahan was convicted of robbery in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.Gardner & Churchill, of Huron, for appellant.
Buell F. Jones, Atty. Gen. (Bernard A. Brown, of Pierre, on the brief), for the State.
This a criminal action in which defendant is charged with robbery in the first degree in stealing and carrying off a Ford sedan belonging to one Kuni, a resident of Huron, S. D., by means of force and fear of immediate injury to the person of said Kuni.
The evidence shows that said Kuni, about 1 o'clock in the morning of September 1, 1923, returned to his home in the company of his wife and next-door neighbors in his Ford sedan; that Kuni let his wife and neighbors out of the car in front of the house, and then drove his car between the houses and into the garage; that he then went to the back door of his house, and before his wife opened the door he was accosted by two men; that the men were masked and both drew guns on said Kuni; that with a great deal of profanity, one of the men said, “I want you and your car”; that Kuni was forced into his car; that the assailants turned on the lights and started the engine; that the assailants then got into the back seat and ordered Kuni to back the car out into the street and ordered him to “drive south, and drive as if it was life and death”; that about four miles east of Woonsocket, S. D., in Sanborn county, said Kuni was ordered to stop the car; that all three got out, and Kuni's assailants backed him up against a telegraph post, “put his arms backward around the post, tied his hands, took off his hat, kicked him, and crouched him down on the post; they struck him with some instrument that rendered him unconscious and raised a welt on his head, took his car, informed him that he would find it on the streets of Mitchell next morning, and left”; that the car has never been seen since. In his defense defendant pleaded an alibi. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the court entered a judgment sentencing defendant to serve a term of 15 years in the state penitentiary at Sioux Falls, S. D., at hard labor. It is from such judgment and an order denying a new trial that this appeal is taken.
Appellant has assigned 31 assignments of error.
[1][2] Assignments 29, 30, 31 allege error in that defendant was taken from the jail to the courtroom, handcuffed to a guard, and kept in custody of two guards seated near him. The record shows that prior to the trial defendant had made an attempt to escape, had threatened the life of the sheriff or any one else who attempted to hinder him in making a getaway; that the wife of the sheriff made an affidavit to the effect that prior to the trial she had overheard the defendant say, in substance, that a number of his friends had arrived in Huron that day, and he expected them to come up and take him out of jail; that defendant mentioned these friends, individually, telling of their criminal records in various penitentiaries. The record further shows that in taking defendant to the courtroom in manacles, precaution was taken not to bring him in contact with the jury until the manacles had been removed, and that the guard who had custody of him sat at a distance of 10 or 15 feet from defendant. It is the universal rule that while no unreasonable restraint may be exercised over the defendant during his trial, yet it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine what is and what is not reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...by the appellant, if the jury would believe the state’s witnesses, is sufficient to raise a presumption of guilt therefrom. State v. Hanrahan, 49 SD 434, 207 NW 224; State v. Burmeister et al., 65 SD 600, 277 NW 30; State v. Drew, 179 Mo. 315, 78 SW 594, 101 Am St. Rep. 474, and see note at......
-
State v. Johnson
...... the evidence submitted to the jury was sufficient so that a. jury could find the defendant guilty. The recent possession. of the hogs in question by the appellant, if the jury would. believe the state's witnesses, is sufficient to raise a. presumption of guilt therefrom. State v. Hanrahan, 49 S.D. 434, 207 N.W. 224; State v. Burmeister et al., 65 S.D. 600,. 277 N.W. 30; State v. Drew, 179 Mo. 315, 78 S.W. 594, 101. Am.St.Rep. 474, and see note at page 481. . . The. possession of the hogs, when the appellant drove the truck. into Scott's yard on June 8th, was ......