State v. Hicks
Decision Date | 10 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 21,474 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ROBERT HICKS, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1917.
Appeal from Montgomery district court; JOSEPH W. HOLDREN, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
MAINTAINING GAMBLING RESORT--Insufficient Evidence to Convict. Evidence examined and held insufficient to sustain a conviction under section 295 of the crimes act (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 3622) charging defendant with keeping and maintaining a gambling resort.
Dallas W. Knapp, and Charles Bucher, both of Coffeyville, for the appellant.
S. M. Brewster, attorney-general, Thurman Hill, county attorney, and George D. Higgins, assistant county attorney, for the appellee.
The appellant was charged with keeping and maintaining, on certain premises in Coffeyville, a gambling place, where persons were permitted to bet money on a game of chance and to resort for gambling purposes. He was convicted and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary not exceeding five years. In his appeal he contends that the verdict and judgment are not sustained by the evidence.
Informations were filed charging Scotty Watson and Bob Hicks, the appellant, with maintaining and keeping a gambling resort. By agreement both defendants were tried together, with the result that both were convicted. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which the court overruled. The evidence of the prosecution showed that the premises in question, a room under the Condon bank, were used as a pool hall, and that a great many persons congregated there at times and played games of cards and dice for money. It is contended by the state that the abstract discloses an abundance of testimony to sustain the verdict and judgment. The principal witness for the prosecution was C. P. Carnes. He testified that Bob Hicks was "in and out of the pool hall there in both departments." In answer to the question, "Who seemed to be in charge of the place?" he said: The nearest the testimony of this witness came to connecting the appellant with any management or control of the premises was as follows:
The city attorney, who was agent for the bank, testified that he rented the basement to Scotty Watson on an oral lease; that Watson occupied the basement between one and two months, when the bank made complaint and he asked Watson to vacate. He testified that he never knew of Hicks having the reputation of being in the gambling business, and never learned anything that would lead him to believe that Hicks had anything to do with the pool hall; that he first heard it intimated when insinuated by the county attorney at the preliminary hearing.
W. R. Brooks, a witness for the state, testified as follows:
On his cross-examination this witness testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...permitting of gambling by any device in a building or premises under one's control that is made punishable." (p. 452.) The State v. Hicks, 101 Kan. 782, 168 P. 861: Defendant was charged with keeping and maintaining on a premises a gambling place where persons were permitted to bet money on......
-
State v. Davis
...He was not authorized to open the machines or remove the winnings therefrom and had no interest in the profits. (See State v. Hicks, 101 Kan. 782, 168 P. 861.) The evidence in this record is insufficient to prove the defendant was either the keeper of the gambling devices (slot machines) or......
-
Sesso v. United States, 8176.
...the police enter); People v. Mitchell, 66 Hun 629, 21 N.Y.S. 166 (no evidence to connect the accused with the gaming rooms); State v. Hicks, 101 Kan. 782, 168 P. 861 (nothing to show that accused was more than a frequent visitor of the place which had always been in the control of another);......
-
Grossman v. State
...has been habitually indulged in there. Creash v. State, 131 Fla. 111, 179 So. 149; Millman v. State, Fla., 55 So.2d 713; State v. Hicks, 101 Kan. 782, 168 P. 861; White v. State, 115 Ga. 570, 41 S.E. The evidence not only fails to meet the rule approved in these cases but is deficient in ot......