State v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 05 December 1896 |
| Docket Number | 10619 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JOHN MCDONALD |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1896.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court Hon. C. Reed, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Adams & Adams, for appellant.
F. B Dawes, Attorney General, for the State.
OPINION
I. On April 13, 1895, the defendant was adjudged guilty of grand larceny by the stealing, on August 19, 1894, of five head of neat cattle and one heifer, being the personal property of F. J. Granfield; and he was sentenced to confinement and hard labor in the penitentiary for the term of five years. The information as originally filed September 17, 1894, alleged that the property belonged to S. J. Granfield, and it was so when the defendant entered his plea of not guilty thereto September 21, 1894. The trial resulting in the conviction of the defendant did not commence until January term, 1895. At sometime after the entry of the plea, and before the commencement of this trial (the record not showing the date), the State was allowed to amend the information by changing the name of S. J. Granfield to F. J. Granfield. The defendant claims that this was error, and he cites section 72 of the Criminal Code to support his contention. That section authorizes the amendment of an information before plea, in matter of substance or form, without leave; and in all matters of form, at the discretion of the court on the trial, when the amendment can be made without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. We do not interpret the language of this section as a prohibition against such an amendment of a Christian name or initial with leave of the court and before trial. The State v. Beatty, 45 Kan. 492, 496, 498, 25 P. 899. As it was not shown that a postponement of the trial was necessary by reason of the amendment, we cannot say that any substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced thereby.
II. During the trial and after the State had introduced the testimony of all the witnesses whose names were indorsed upon the information, leave was asked and granted to indorse the name of William Humphrey, and he was then called and examined as a witness over the objection of the defendant. Humphrey testified that he and the defendant committed the crime; and on his cross-examination it appeared that the County Attorney had for several days contemplated the calling of Humphrey as a witness for the State. Under these circumstances the trial should have been postponed if the defendant had requested it. The Court ought to require of the prosecuting officer the utmost good faith, and not permit him purposely to spring a surprise upon the defendant. But as no postponement was asked, it cannot be held that the substantial rights of the defendant were prejudicially affected by the ruling of the Court in this particular. The State v. Price, 55 Kan. 606, 608, 40 P. 1000.
III. Certain witnesses testified to the former fair reputation of the defendant for honesty and integrity; and, in cross-examination, they were asked whether they had not heard of the defendant being arrested once before for larceny, and they admitted that they had, although it would seem from their testimony that the case against him was dismissed. The defendant urges that it was error for the Court to allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
... ... 1 Taylor, Ev. § ... 352; 2 Starkie, Ev. 304. By this is meant not the truth of ... such particular [46 Fla. 29] facts, but circulating rumors of ... them, which form a part of the general repute, and help to ... make up one's good or bad character.' State v ... McDonald, 57 Kan. 537, 46 P. 966; State v ... Merriman, 34 S.C. 16, text, 38, 12 S.E. 619; State ... v. Pain, 48 La. Ann. 311, 19 So. 138; Ozburn v ... State, 87 Ga. 173, 13 S.E. 247; White v. State ... (Ala.) 21 So. 330; Goodwin v. State (Ala.) 15 ... So. 571. Some of the questions on ... ...
-
State v. Jones, 44964
...in and of itself a thorough knowledge and preparation of the subject involved. The defendant directs our attention to State v. McDonald, 57 Kan. 537, 46 P. 966, but it is not helpful to him. It illustrates the rule that where the state moves to endorse witnesses during the course of trial, ......
-
James v. State
...of the accused is good, the prosecuting attorney has the right to show that such witness has heard rumors to the contrary. 132 Ind. 542; 57 Kan. 537; 172 Mo. 191; 83 25. The control of the argument is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and unless he has clearly abused that di......
-
State v. Mitchell
...that the question of endorsing additional names on the information is one of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. State v. McDonald, 57 Kan. 537, 46 P. 966; State v. McGlade, 165 Kan. 425, 196 P.2d 173; State v. Eidson, 143 Kan. 300, 54 P.2d 977, 55 P.2d 1050; State v. Hanks, 179 ......