State v. Hardyway, 45574
| Decision Date | 11 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45574,45574 |
| Citation | 205 Kan. 55,468 P.2d 116 |
| Parties | The STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Elmer HARDYWAY, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Possession by an accused of property recently stolen in a burglary is sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary and larceny where satisfactory explanation is not given.
2. An instruction as to unexplained possession of property recently stolen in a burglary is not rendered inapplicable either by the fact that only a part of the property stolen was found in the possession of the accused or by the possibility accused may have had an accomplice in the commission of the burglary.
Dennis E. Shay, Wichita, argued the cause, and Stephen K. Lester, Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.
James Z. Hernandez, Deputy County Atty., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., and Keith Sanborn, County Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
HARMAN, Commissioner.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of the offenses of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny. Allegedly a number of suede and leather coats were stolen in the burglary of a cleaning shop.
Defendant's complaints on appeal center upon an instruction to the jury to the effect that possession by an accused of property recently stolen in a burglary is sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary and larceny where satisfactory explanation is not given. The instruction given was similar to that sustained against attack on other grounds in State v. Brown, 203 Kan. 884, 457 P.2d 130, and it correctly embodies our law (State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475, 449 P.2d 515).
The parties agree the other instructions given the jury, which have not been abstracted here, correctly stated the law as to defendant's presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a single instruction isolated from the context of the other instructions given may be subject to criticism, yet when all the instructions are taken as a whole, as they must be, the law is correctly stated. The instruction given here did not, as contended, have the effect of shifting the burden of proof upon the defendant (State v. Bell, 109 Kan. 767, 771, 201 P. 1110).
Defendant argues the instruction was inappropriate because under the evidence someone else could also have been inferred to be guilty of the offense. Despite the possible involvement of any other individual, the finger of guilt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilkins
...is sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary and theft where satisfactory explanation for such possession is not given. (State v. Hardyway, 205 Kan. 55, Syl. 1, 468 P.2d 116; State v. Oswald, 197 Kan. 251, 255, 417 P.2d 261.) The evidence on review in the present case is sufficient to ......
-
State v. Haremza, 47039
...was stolen. (Barnes v. United States, supra, and many Kansas cases including State v. Kowalec, 205 Kan. 57, 468 P.2d 221; State v. Hardyway, 205 Kan. 55, 468 P.2d 116; State v. Brown, 203 Kan. 884, 457 P.2d 130; and State v. Jenkins, 197 Kan. 651, 421 P.2d 33.) On the basis of the authority......
-
State v. Atkinson
...recent and is unexplained or if the explanation is not satisfactory it will support a conviction of burglary and larceny. (State v. Hardyway, 205 Kan. 55, 468 P.2d 116; State v. Brown, supra; and State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475, 449 P.2d Defendant next quesitions the legality of the search an......
-
State v. Singleton, 46822
...shift the burden of proof to him. Such a contention was recently examined and rejected in State v. Kowalec, supra, and in State v. Hardyway, 205 Kan. 55, 468 P.2d 116. We adhere to what was said in those The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. ...