State v. Kennedy
| Decision Date | 09 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 27,491 |
| Citation | 257 P. 726,124 Kan. 119 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAMES KENNEDY, Appellant.(257 P. 944) |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1927.
Appeal from Jefferson district court; MARTIN A. BENDER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LARCENY--Evidence--Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient. A verdict finding an accused guilty of an offense upon circumstantial evidence may be upheld; and the evidence produced against the defendant in the present case upon examination is held to be sufficient to sustain the finding and judgment that defendant was guilty of larceny.
2 SAME--Generally. Minor rulings challenged are held to be without prejudicial error.
Oscar Raines, of Topeka, for the appellant.
William A. Smith, attorney-general, Roland Boynton, assistant attorney-general, and Lloyde Morris, county attorney, for the appellee.
James Kennedy was charged with and convicted of the larceny of a hog of the value of more than $ 20. He appeals and his principal complaint is that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction.
When the owner discovered that the hog was missing he made a search of his premises and found tracks of a hog and also of a man leading from the yard to a gate which opened on a highway. There was snow on the ground at the time and where the tracks ended the snow was beaten down, and there were marks indicating that the hog had been turned over on its back. There were tracks indicating that an automobile had turned around at the place where the snow had been mashed down on the road and the tracks of the automobile showed that there were three smooth tires and one nobby one. It was discovered that the defendant's automobile had three smooth tires and one nobby one on it. When officers had been notified and came to examine the premises, they found along the tracks made a written receipt made out in the name of the defendant, acknowledging the receipt of $ 10, and the defendant acknowledged that this receipt belonged to him. On an examination of defendant's automobile they found hog manure in it and also hog bristles, as well as a rope with hog bristles on it. The track of a man found at the owner's premises showed that there were heels on the shoes worn, and there were also heels on the shoes of the defendant when he was arrested, but on the next day when he was brought in for preliminary examination, the heels of the shoes had recently been removed, and he stated that the shoes were the same as he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilkins
...says: 'It is well established that a conviction, even of the gravest offense, may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. (State v. Kennedy, 124 Kan. 119, 257 P. 726.) This court has even said that inferences drawn from admitted or well authenticated facts may be stronger and more convinci......
-
State v. White
...evidence. (State v. Ritson, 215 Kan. 742, 529 P.2d 90 (1974); State v. Hale, 207 Kan. 446, 485 P.2d 1338 (1971); and State v. Kennedy, 124 Kan. 119, 257 P. 726 (1927)). More recently we have concluded that the probative values of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar ......
-
State v. Ritson
...by circumstantial evidence. (State v. Wilkins, 215 Kan. 145, 523 P.2d 728; State v. Hale, 207 Kan. 446, 485 P.2d 1338; and State v. Kennedy, 124 Kan. 119, 257 P. 726.) In State v. Wilkins, supra, this court concluded that the probative values of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrin......
-
State v. Morton, 47692
...evidence. (State v. Ritson, 215 Kan. 742, 529 P.2d 90 (1974); State v. Hale, 207 Kan. 446, 485 P.2d 1338 (1971); State v. Kennedy, 124 Kan. 119, 257 P. 726 (1927).) The probative values of direct and circumstantial evidence are intrinsically similar and there is no sound reason for drawing ......