State v. King
| Decision Date | 10 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 44009,44009 |
| Citation | 400 P.2d 975,194 Kan. 629 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jack Martin KING, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The record presented on appeal from a conviction and sentence in a criminal action is examined, and it is held, the appellant has failed to make it affirmatively appear any errors have been committed by the trial court to the prejudice of appellant's rights.
2. Oral admissions or written statements against interest in criminal prosecutions are properly admitted as evidence if fully made without inducement or duress, or brought about by some other improper means, and such admissions or written statements do not contravene either Section 10 of the Bill of Rights of our state constitution or the due process clause of the federal constitution.
James T. Graves and Thomas W. Hampton, Salina, argued the cause and were on the brief for the appellant.
Bill Crews, County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for the appellee.
Jack Martin King, appellant, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was duly charged by an information in the district court of Saline county with the crime of robbery in the first degree in violation of G.S.1949, 21-527 and 21-105 (now K.S.A. 21-527 and 21-105). Upon a trial the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled and he was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary.
The defendant appeals to this court from the order overruling his motion for a new trial and the imposition of sentence contending (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the written statement made by him which he maintains was made without his being advised of his rights or afforded legal counsel; (2) he was not advised of the nature of the charges against him and the penalty therefor; and (3) he was not afforded legal counsel at preliminary hearing. Only so much of the facts as are pertinent to the issues involved will be narrated.
Defendant was apprehended by police officers on the day the offense was alleged to have been committed, December 10, 1963, and was taken to the police station at Salina where he was interrogated by Detective Jack Richardson. On the moring of December 11 the defendant was taken before the city court of Salina where he waived the appointment of counsel to represent him at the preliminary, also waived his preliminary hearing, and was bound over to the district court of Saline county. On January 8, 1964, defendant was taken before the district court where Harold Henderson, a member of the Saline County Bar, was appointed to represent him. On February 18 the defendant, appearing with his courtappointed counsel, waived formal arraignment, entered a plea of not guilty, and the court announced the matter was ready for trial. On that day the jury was selected and the trial commenced.
Considering defendant's first contention, the record discloses that during the course of the prosecution the county attorney offered into evidence the written statement made by the defendant resulting from the interrogation by Detective Richardson on December 11. The court, in the absence of the jury, made a careful examination of the circumstances by which the statement was obtained: whether or not it was a voluntary statement of the defendant and whether or not he had been properly advised of his constitutional rights.
The testimony of Officer Richardson disclosed that as the interview started between him and the defendant on the morning of the 11th, the conversation was over matters of mutual interest, as to a job, and where the defendant lived, and such matters. As they entered into the content of a statement, then at that time the officer advised defendant of his right to secure counsel of his choice and also advised him that any statement being made would have to be voluntary; that the officer was making no threats, and no promises, with regard to any statement; and that any statement the defendant made might be used against him. The officer further stated he advised the defendnat more than once of his rights prior to making or signing the statement. The defendant consented to make and sign the statement. The officer then stated he discussed the matter of the robbery of the previous evening with defendant and as they discussed the matter the officer would type the questions and answers. The statement consisted of two pages. The introductory remarks of the statement read:
* * *'
The statement was signed by defendant and witnessed by Officers Richardson and Slayton.
The officer further testified the defendant read the statement completely, made one correction in the statement, initialed the correction, and studied the statement before signing it.
On being handed the statement, the defendant, testifying in his own behalf, stated it was his statement and his signature attached thereto; that he made the statement without being threatened, coerced or forced; that he was told by the officer that the officer had no right to tell him what the charges against him would be; that the officer told him he might have an attorney of his choice present but didn't say when; and that he signed the statement so he could 'get the thing over with.'
The procedure followed by the trial court in hearing evidence in the absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bergin v. State
...conclusions, see State v. Jordan, 193 Kan. 664, 666, 396 P.2d 342; White v. Crouse, 193 Kan. 674, 679, 396 P.2d 333; State v. King (No. 44,009), 194 Kan. 629, 400 P.2d 975 (this day decided), and State v. Blacksmith (No. 44,096), 194 Kan. 643, 400 P.2d 743, (this day In the face of the agre......
-
Call v. State
...an intelligent waiver, as the appellant did in the case presently before the court.' (p. 824, 402 P.2d p. 331.) See also State v. King, 194 Kan. 629, 632, 400 P.2d 975, and State v. Stubbs, 195 Kan. ----, 407 P.2d As to the third point, the petitioner has not alleged that he was deprived of......
-
State v. Washington
...13 L.Ed.2d 805; White v. Crouse, 193 Kan. 674, 679, 396 P.2d 333, cert. den. 381 U.S. 954, 85 S.Ct. 1814, 14 L.Ed.2d 727; State v. King, 194 Kan. 629, 400 P.2d 975, and State v. Blacksmith, 194 Kan. 643, 400 P.2d 743. Moreover, this court has held that it is not error for a district court t......
-
King v. State, 45127
...of from 10 to 21 years in the Kansas State Penitentiary. He appealed the conviction to this court, where it was affirmed in State v. King, 194 Kan. 629, 400 P.2d 975. The present action was filed July 22, 1966, pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507. The petitioner's motion challenged......