State v. Klein
| Decision Date | 11 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 35146. |
| Citation | 117 P.2d 575,154 Kan. 165 |
| Parties | STATE v. KLEIN. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It is not the function of the Supreme Court to weigh the evidence in a criminal case, or to pass on the credibility of witnesses, as that is for the jury, and where there is any substantial competent evidence to support it, a verdict will not be disturbed on ground of insufficiency of the evidence.
Evidence sustained conviction for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor.
The record is examined in a criminal action for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and found sufficient to support the verdict of conviction.
Appeal from District Court, Butler County; George J. Benson, Judge.
A. J Klein was convicted of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Richard E. Kirkpatrick and Richard Jones, both of Wichita, for appellant.
Jay S Parker, Atty. Gen., A. B. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gale Moss, Co. Atty., and O. J. Connell, Jr., Asst. Co. Atty., both of El Dorado, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. Appellant contends that the verdict is not supported by substantial, competent evidence.
On the morning of September 12, 1940, at about eight or nine o'clock an auto was found wrecked in a ditch a few miles west of DeGraff, in Butler county. It contained about 450 pints of whisky and a large additional number of broken bottles. Ownership of the car was traced to the appellant who lived at Derby, Kansas, and he was arrested when he appeared at El Dorado on September 18 to claim the car. Together with the driver of the car, whose identity apparently was not discovered, he was charged on two counts--the first being for possession and the second being for unlawful transportation of liquor. Tried before a jury in the county court he was acquitted on the first and convicted on the second count. On appeal to the district court from conviction on the second count he was again convicted by a jury. By motions to dismiss, for a directed verdict and for a new trial, the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence was raised and is brought here for review.
It is conceded that there was no evidence that appellant drove the car or was at the scene of the accident. The state does not contend that any evidence was produced that appellant personally transported the liquor, in violation of G.S.1935 21-2102, but relies entirely upon section 62-1016, which relates to aiding and abetting in the commission of any offense. Was there sufficient evidence to support a finding that the appellant aided and abetted the unlawful transportation?
It is not our function to weigh the evidence, or to pass upon the credibility of witnesses--that is for the jury. Where there is any substantial, competent evidence to support it, a verdict will not be disturbed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. State v. Morrison, 115 Kan. 200, 202, 222 P. 87, and cases there cited.
When appellant's car was found it bore Illinois license plates which had belonged to another car which had been disposed of in Wichita sometime previously by the owner, a resident of El Dorado. Ownership of the wrecked car was traced by the engine number. The car had been equipped with overload coil springs, one of which was found in place and the other lying on the ground, having apparently been knocked out of place in the wreck.
When arrested on September 18 appellant signed a written statement in which he stated that he put the car in his garage at Derby on September 11th at about ten-thirty or eleven o'clock in the evening, and left...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
... ... support it, a verdict will not be disturbed on the ground of ... insufficiency of the evidence. State v. Morrison, ... 115 Kan. 200, 222 P. 87; State v. Wood, 145 Kan ... 730, 67 P.2d 544; State v. Edwards, 151 Kan. 365, 99 ... P.2d 836; State v. Klein, 154 Kan. 165, 117 P.2d ... 575; State v. Thomas, 155 Kan. 374, 125 P.2d 375; ... and State v. Dodd, 156 Kan. 52, 131 P.2d 725 ... Measured by the rule just announced it must be conceded, in ... fact it cannot be denied, there was competent evidence from ... which the jury, after observing ... ...
-
State v. Sims
...to support it, a verdict will not be disturbed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. (State v. Klein, 154 Kan. 165, 166, 117 P.2d 575, and State v. Crosby, 182 Kan. 677, syl. 5, 324 P.2d 197, 76 A.L.R.2d 514.) Secondly, it is contended the trial court erred......
-
State v. Dodd
...because of insufficiency of evidence should have been sustained. In the recent case of State v. Klein, 154 Kan. 165, loc. cit. 166, 117 P.2d 575, was said: "It is not our function to weigh the evidence, or to pass upon the credibility of witnesses--that is for the jury. Where there is any s......