State v. Knapp
| Decision Date | 10 November 1888 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JOHN W. KNAPP et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Barton District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Order and judgment affirmed.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, and Waters, Chase & Tillotson, for The State.
A. J Hoskinson, and W. A. Frush, contra.
OPINION
On the 31st of May, 1887, an information was filed against the defendants in the district court of Wichita county, charging them with the offense of murder in the first degree. Subsequently, they were arrested, and on the 16th day of December, 1887, they applied to the district court for a change of venue from the county of Wichita to some other county in the twenty-seventh judicial district, being the same district in which Wichita county is situated. Thereupon the state admitted that the defendants could not obtain a fair trial in Wichita county, where the prosecution was pending, and that their application for a change of venue was in due form; but suggested, by affidavits, that the judge of the twenty-seventh judicial district had been the counsel for defendants, and therefore interested and prejudiced in their favor, and asked that the trial of the case be removed to the district court of some county in a different district. This was granted, and the place of trial was changed to the county of Barton, in the twentieth judicial district. To the order changing the place of trial outside of the twenty-seventh judicial district and to the twentieth judicial district, the defendants objected and duly excepted. After the order was made for the removal of the cause from Wichita to Barton county, a transcript of the record was filed in the latter county, and on the 9th of February, 1888, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the cause for the reason that the district court had no jurisdiction, against the objections of the defendants, to hear and try the case. The court sustained the motion, and dismissed the case. The state excepted, and appeals to this court.
The only question which presents itself for our consideration, is this: Did the district court of Barton county have jurisdiction to try the defendants and pronounce judgment in the cause? By § 10 of our bill of rights, it is provided that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be allowed "a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed." The offense charged against the defendants was committed in the county of Wichita, and in the twenty-seventh judicial district. An attempt was made to put the defendants upon trial in Barton county, and in the twentieth judicial district; therefore an attempt was made to deny to the defendants a jury of the county or district in which the crime was committed. It is contended upon the part of the state that the statute authorizes a change of venue in a criminal cause, on the motion of the state, from one county to another, and from one judicial district to a different judicial district. (Crim. Code, §§ 173, 176.) We said in The State v. Bunker, 38 Kan. 737, 741, that--
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kusel
...alleged to have been committed. (Kent v. State, 64 Ark. 247; Weyrich v. People, 89 Ill. 90; Perteet v. People, 70 Ill. 171; State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148; 19 P. 728; State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80; Parker v. 12 Bush, 191; Kennison v. State, 83 Neb. 391; 119 N.W. 768; State v. Crinklow, 59 N.W. 3......
-
State v. Tijerina, 701
...against the objection of the defendant, is void because it is in conflict with Article II, § 14 of the Constitution. State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148, 19 P. 728 (1888); Addington v. State, supra; State ex rel. Hartinger v. Court of Common Pleas, 84 Ohio App. 241, 86 N.E.2d 810 (1948); People v. ......
-
State v. Mendoza
...102 Ariz. 225, 427 P.2d 917 (1967).7 In re Nelson, 19 S.D. 214, 102 N.W. 885 (1902); Kirk v. State, 41 Tenn. 344 (1860); State v. Knapp, 40 Kan. 148, 19 P. 728 (1888); State ex rel. Hartinger v. Court of Common Pleas of Perry County, 84 Ohio App. 241, 86 N.E.2d 810, 813 (1948); State v. Gre......
-
Price v. Superior Court
...an accused to a "speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed"]; State v. Knapp (1888) 40 Kan. 148, 19 P. 728 [Kansas Bill of Rights, § 10, entitled defendant to "a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in......