State v. McCool
| Decision Date | 04 February 1886 |
| Citation | 9 P. 745,34 Kan. 617 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JOSEPH MCCOOL |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Allen District Court.
AT the June Term, 1884, Joseph McCool was tried for grand larceny convicted, and sentenced to serve three years in the penitentiary. He appeals. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Judgement affirmed.
Knight & Foust, for appellant.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
OPINION
Joseph McCool was informed against and tried in the district court of Allen county, for the offense of stealing a trunk and some wearing apparel contained therein, of the aggregate value of more than $ 25. He was convicted of grand larceny, and adjudged to serve three years in the penitentiary, from which conviction he appeals to this court. He first objects to the rulings of the court upon the admission and rejection of testimony, but fails to state particularly what is objectionable in the rulings. We have examined them, however, and find that the appellant has no cause for complaint.
Error is assigned in the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment. The alleged ground of the motion is, that the evidence does not support the charge, but that if any offense is shown to be committed, it is that of embezzlement, and not grand larceny. The grounds upon which a judgment may be arrested are specifically prescribed in the statute, and are "First, that the grand jury which found the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, by reason of its not being within the jurisdiction of the court; second, that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense." (Crim. Code, § 277.) As will be seen, the cause alleged by the defendant is not among those enumerated in the statute, and the motion was properly overruled. A motion for a new trial was made, and one of the grounds stated therein was that of newly-discovered evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the motion, it is stated that one John Miller was present and heard the contract of purchase made between the defendant and John Beckley, the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen, and saw the defendant pay to Beckley the price thereof. This testimony would certainly be material to the issues in the case, but it does not appear to be newly discovered. It seems that the defendant had knowledge of this testimony, and caused a subpena to be issued and served upon the witness Miller, who for some reason failed to appear at the time of the trial, and an attachment was then asked and obtained for the delinquent witness. Upon the showing made, a continuance to enable the defendant to obtain the testimony could probably have been obtained, but it appears that no continuance was asked for, and the non-attendance of a witness, under these circumstances, can hardly entitle the defendant to another trial. At any rate, the evidence cannot be regarded as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haskins
...in the case; State v. Johnson, 26 Idaho 609, 144 P. 784, 785 (Sup.Ct.1914)--all persons other than spectators; State v. McCool, 34 Kan. 617, 9 P. 745, 747 (Sup.Ct.1886)--all persons other than ladies; State v. Croak, 167 La. 92, 118 So. 703, 705 (Sup.Ct.1928)--including those specially requ......
-
State v. Keeler
...enjoy some special privilege not open to the laymen? The bare statement of such propositions is their own refutation. In State v. McCool, 34 Kan. 617, 9 P. 745, the court, at the instance of the county attorney, requested all ladies present to leave the courtroom, as the public prosecutor w......
-
State v. Crozier
...cannot be arrested on the grounds that the evidence offered does not support the charge made against the defendant. See State v. McCool, 34 Kan. 617, 9 P. 745 (1886), and the many cases from other jurisdictions cited in the annotation at 131 A.L.R. 187 at page 188. The rule followed in Kans......
-
Keddington v. State
...14 P. 849; Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 63, 31 So. 953), or to exclude women because of the indecent character of the evidence (State v. McCool, 34 Kan. 617, 9 P. 745), or to exclude persons of a dangerous character States v. Buck, 4 Phila. 169, Fed. Cas. No. 14,680), or where the public morals ......