State v. Hansford
| Decision Date | 11 December 1909 |
| Docket Number | 16,173 |
| Citation | 106 P. 738,81 Kan. 300 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ALLEN HANSFORD, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1909.
Appeal from Shawnee district court; ALSTON W. DANA, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL LAW -- Testimony Indicating Defendant's Guilt and Implicating Him in Another Crime. It is not error to permit the county attorney in a criminal prosecution to state to the jury facts which tend to establish the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged because such facts tend to show that he is also guilty of another and different offense.
2. CRIMINAL LAW -- Same. It is not error to permit the state in a criminal prosecution to produce testimony which is relevant and material in establishing the defendant's guilt of the crime charged because it also tends to establish his guilt of another and different offense.
3. CRIMINAL LAW -- Statutory Rape Defined. Sexual intercourse with a female less than eighteen years of age constitutes rape as defined by section 2016 of the General Statutes of 1901, whether it is accomplished by force or with consent.
4. CRIMINAL LAW -- Statutory Rape -- Information -- Immaterial Allegations -- Variance. In a prosecution for such a crime, where the offense has been committed with the consent of the female and under a promise of marriage, and the information charges that the defendant "did then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously make an assault in and upon one Minnie Warrell . . . and in the manner and form aforesaid commit the crime of rape," the language of such information importing the use of force and violence is immaterial and surplusage; and the omission to prove such alleged force and violence upon the trial will not constitute a fatal variance between the allegations of the information and the proof.
5. CRIMINAL LAW -- Instructions. It is not error for the court to refuse to give an instruction requested when the charge given covers the point mentioned in the instruction requested.
Z. T. Hazen, and R. H. Gaw, for the appellant.
Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, W. E. Atchison, deputy county attorney, Arthur J. Bolinger, assistant county attorney, and Waters & Waters, for the appellee
The defendant, Allen Hansford, was convicted in the district court of Shawnee county of having committed the crime of rape on Minnie Warrell, a female under the age of eighteen years, and he appeals to this court to have the rulings of the district court reviewed.
The defendant complains that the attorney for the prosecution, in presenting the case to the jury, informed them that after the commission of the crime of rape as charged he assisted the prosecutrix in procuring an abortion; that this statement was several times repeated, over his objections. In connection with this objection it is urged that the court permitted evidence to be presented to the jury concerning the commission of an abortion upon the prosecuting witness, in which the defendant displayed an active interest. In this manner it is said the defendant was compelled to defend against an offense not charged in the information and wholly irrelevant to the real issue to be tried. As a general proposition it is undoubtedly the duty of the trial court to exclude from the jury all statements, either of counsel or witnesses, which do not relate to the offense charged; but it is equally true that evidence relevant and competent to establish the defendant's guilt of the crime charged is not rendered inadmissible for the reason that it also tends to show the defendant's guilt of another, separate and distinct offense. (The State v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105; The State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311; The State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 37 P. 174; The State v. Borchert, 68 Kan. 360, 74 P. 1108.)
The defendant lived on a farm with his father, who had a large family and employed several farm hands. The prosecutrix also lived in the family, in the capacity of a domestic. The crime charged was committed in the washhouse, under a promise of marriage. When the condition of the prosecutrix became known to her and she informed the defendant, he suggested that an abortion be procured and that the marriage be postponed until after it should be accomplished, and he counseled, aided and assisted her in procuring medical treatment to that end. The defendant denied that he was responsible for her condition, and the whole family testified to admissions made by her that she was more than eighteen years of age. The prosecution depended almost entirely upon the evidence of the prosecuting witness. Any proper evidence which would corroborate and sustain her testimony was therefore material and important. Any conduct of the defendant showing an active agency or interest in the procurement of an abortion, and thereby a concealment of the crime, would to some extent corroborate and sustain the accusation, and was therefore admissible. His conduct was such as would naturally and ordinarily be expected of a guilty person in his situation, the weight, cogency and probative force of such circumstances being questions for the determination of the jury.
It is further claimed that since the information charged that the defendant "did . . . make an assault . . . upon one Minnie Warrell" and "did carnally know and forcibly ravish said Minnie Warrell and in the manner and form aforesaid commit the crime of rape," and the testimony showed that the criminal act was had with the consent of the prosecutrix, there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof, on account of which the defendant ought to have been discharged, and that the court erred in denying his motion to be discharged and for a verdict of not guilty. This question has been presented to this court in substantially the same form in several cases where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King
...of other offenses did not render it inadmissible. (The State v. Calhoun, 75 Kan. 259; The State v. Hansford, 81 Kan. 300; 62 L. R. A. 252, 106 P. 738, note; 5 Encyc. of 868; 1 Wig. Ev. §§ 315, 318.)" (p. 391.) In The State v. Lowe, 6 Kan.App. 110, 50 P. 912, the defendant was convicted of g......
-
State v. Hoel
... ... "If the instructions of the court cover the entire ... ground, and inform the jury upon all matters necessary for ... their determination and inform them correctly, this is ... sufficient." (See, also, State v. Hoel, 77 Kan ... 334, 94 P. 267; State v. Hansford, 81 Kan. 300, 106 ... P. 738; State v. Gallamore, 83 Kan. 412, 111 P. 472; ... State v. Chiles, 90 Kan. 787, 136 P. 225; State ... v. Patterson, 98 Kan. 197, 199, 157 P. 437; State v ... Covington, 99 Kan. 151, 160 P. 1009.) ... The ... parts of the requested instructions which ... ...
-
Steen v. State
... ... The ... fact that evidence which tends toward proving an accused ... guilty may also tend to prove the commission of another ... offense does not render it inadmissible. State v ... Calhoun, 75 Kan. 259, 88 P. 1079; State v ... Hansford, 81 Kan. 300, 106 P. 738; State v ... Chance, 82 Kan. 388, 108 P. 789, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1003 ... [20 Ann.Cas. 164].' ... Under ... these decisions this evidence was clearly admissible, as not ... only being a part of the res gestae, but as strong evidence ... as to the state ... ...
-
State v. Marmolejo
...held all the State had to prove for a conviction was fornication and that the female was under the age of 18. In State v. Hansford , 81 Kan. 300, 303, 106 P. 738 (1909), the Supreme Court noted there are some crimes "where the manner in which they are committed is material and important as ......