State v. Heinz
| Decision Date | 10 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | 27,011 |
| Citation | 121 Kan. 547,247 P. 631 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FRANK HEINZ, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1926.
Appeal from Atchison district court; WILLIAM A. JACKSON, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CRIMINAL LAW--Limitation of Prosecution--Concealing Fact of Crime. Section 62-504 of the Revised Statutes does not apply where the fact that a crime has been committed is discovered the next day after its commission.
Maurice P. O'Keefe, of Atchison, for the appellant.
Charles B. Griffith, attorney-general, Roland Boynton, assistant attorney-general, George L. Brown, county attorney, and Lawrence F. Day, of Atchison, for the appellee.
The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the larceny of an engineer's transit of the value of more than $ 20.
It is contended by the defendant that there was no evidence which tended to prove that he concealed the crime. There was evidence which tended to show that the larceny had been committed on February 23, 1921; that on the following day the transit was missed from the place in which it had been deposited and was not thereafter seen by anyone, except possibly the defendant, until about November 3, 1925, when it was found in his possession. He then claimed to have had it for forty years. On the stand he testified that he had bought the transit at a second-hand store in Kansas City from fifteen to seventeen years before it was stolen.
So far as material, section 62-504 of the Revised Statutes reads:
"If any person who has committed an offense . . . conceals the fact of the crime, the time of absence or concealment is not to be included in computing the period of limitation."
Did the evidence tend to show that the defendant concealed the fact that a crime had been committed? That fact was known the morning after the transit was taken. The circumstances revealed that it had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Palmer
...cases. One of the earliest cases discussing concealment and determining the statute of limitations was not tolled is State v. Heinz, 121 Kan. 547, 247 Pac. 631 (1926), which dealt with larceny of a surveyor's transit. In Heinz, the State relied on R.S.1923, 62-504, the predecessor to K.S.A.......
-
Study v. State
...the discovery of the commission of the offense was needed and not mere silence or inaction. ” Id. at 737–38 (citing State v. Heinz, 121 Kan. 547, 548, 247 P. 631, 631 (1926) ) (emphasis added). The defendant “must have concealed the fact of the crime and not merely his connection with the c......
-
State v. Bentley
...own, this court ruled those actions did not constitute concealment. See State v. Gainer, 227 Kan. 670, 608 P.2d 968; State v. Heinz, 121 Kan. 547, 247 Pac. 631 (1926). However, where the defendant misrepresented facts, failed to produce documents requested by the court, verified false state......
-
State v. Watson
...designed to prevent discovery of the crime with which he is charged; mere silence, inaction, or nondisclosure is not enough. State v. Heinz, 121 Kan. 547, 247 P. 631; State v. Wingett, 136 Kan. 436, 16 P.2d State v. Taylor, 140 Kan. 663, 38 P.2d 680. The defendant stands charged with the em......