State v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 02 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 43132,43132 |
| Citation | 191 Kan. 126,379 P.2d 304 |
| Parties | The STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Johnnie HOLMES, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In an appeal from a conviction of the offense of setting up and keeping a gambling table in violation of the provisions of G.S.1949, 21-915, the record and the numerous contentions with respect to alleged trial errors are examined and considered, and it is held that all contentions are without merit and defendant's motion for a new trial was properly overruled.
E. J. Schumacher, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Robert M. Brown, County Atty., argued the cause, and William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., and Sherman A. Parks, Asst. County Atty., were with him on the brief for the appellee.
Following a raid by officers at an establishment on lower Kansas Avenue in the city of Topeka, the defendant was charged with setting up and keeping a gambling table, in violation of G.S.1949, 21-915. He was convicted as charged, and, following the overruling of his motion for a new trial, has appealed and alleges sixteen specifications of error.
At the outset, it should be stated that this court has read the record presented and has considered each of the alleged errors specified. No new or novel points of law are involved, and certainly no useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence or by taking up and discussing in detail each of the alleged errors. The court is convinced that the appeal is completely without merit and that the judgment must be affirmed. Nevertheless, a few of the alleged errors will be mentioned and discussed briefly.
It is contended the court erred in overruling the motion to quash and the plea in abatement. Apparently the grounds for these motions are that the information does not state a public offense and that defendant was denied a preliminary hearing. The information is substantially in the language of the statute and a public offense was sufficiently charged. The record indicates--and upon oral argument it was admitted--that defendant, while represented by counsel, had previously waived his right to a preliminary hearing. Both motions were properly overruled.
It is contended the court erred in overruling the motion to discharge at the close of the state's evidence. This motion likewise was without merit, for the evidence clearly established defendant to be in charge of and 'keeper' of the dice game within the meaning of G.S.1949, 21-915 and 21-935.
It is contended the court erred in admitting evidence secured by entrapment. A short answer to this argument is that under the facts shown there simply was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prueitt v. State
...(Fla.App.1968); People v. Kimmel, 34 Ill.2d 579, 217 N.E.2d 785 (1966); State v. Hardesty, 153 N.W.2d 464 (Iowa 1967); State v. Holmes, 191 Kan. 126, 379 P.2d 304 (1963); Watson v. Commonwealth, 433 S.W.2d 884 (Ky.1968); Frey v. State, 3 Md.App. 38, 237 A.2d 774 (1968); Strode v. State, 231......
-
State v. Kimmel, 45231
...No grounds are shown to revoke defendant's waiver of a preliminary hearing. (Wright v. State, 199 Kan. 136, 427 P.2d 611; State v. Holmes, 191 Kan. 126, 379 P.2d 304.) For his second point, defendant claims the trial court erred in not changing venue or by not transferring the case to anoth......
-
Wright v. State
...of any irregularity which may have inhered in the preliminary hearing. (Ramsey v. Hand, 183 Kan. 307, 327 P.2d 1080; State v. Holmes, 191 Kan. 126, 379 P.2d 304.) A considerable part of the petitioner's attack on his sentence, (and we note he filed a pro se brief before the trial court), is......
-
State v. Malone
...it may be conceded that we know of, and are cited to, no controlling case in this jurisdiction. Touching on the subject is State v. Holmes, 191 Kan. 126, 379 P.2d 304, where it is 'Another alleged error concerns the alleged prejudicial effect of a news story and picture appearing in a local......