State v. Merrifield, 40233
| Decision Date | 03 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 40233,40233 |
| Citation | 180 Kan. 267,303 P.2d 155 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Clarence Henry MERRIFIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. No sheriff has authority under G.S.1949, 8-262, to authorize or direct any person to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state at a time when such person's driver's license stands revoked, canceled or suspended.
2. A sheriff has authority without a warrant to make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence.
3. Under the provisions of G.S.1949, 21-718, if one under arrest goes into his house, closes and latches the door and refuses to go with the officer on request, without a further overt act, it is sufficient to support a conviction of obstructing, resisting or opposing the officer in the discharge of his official duty in a criminal case other than a felony.
Ralph H. Noah, Beloit, argued the cause, and Don W. Noah, Beloit, was with him on the briefs, for appellant.
Terry E. Relihan, County Atty., Smith Center, and John Anderson, Jr., Atty. Gen., were on the briefs for appellee.
Defendant (appellant) was charged on an information containing two counts: (1) unlawfully driving a motor vehicle on the public highways and streets at a time when his operator's license stood revoked and suspended, in violation of G.S.1949, 8-262, and (2) that defendant did unlawfully and intentionally obstruct, resist and oppose the sheriff of Smith County, and refuse to be taken into custody upon the command of the sheriff, after defendant had been placed under arrest by the sheriff, in violation of G.S.1949, 21-718. Defendant was tried and found guilty as charged. His motion for a new trial was denied, and he was sentenced in accordance with the statute, from which he appeals.
The facts may be briefly stated. It is conceded by all concerned that on April 5, 1955, defendant's license to drive and operate a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways was suspended for a period of six months from that date, and that both the defendant and the sheriff of Smith County were so advised. On the night of May 31, and while defendant's license stood suspended, he called the sheriff of Smith County requesting him to come to his farm to discuss the matter of his wife and step-daughter leaving him. The sheriff advised that the women were of age and he could not help him. Later that evening, defendant again called the sheriff and asked him if he could talk to him if he came in. The sheriff replied, 'Sure, come on in.' Defendant asked, 'Where will you be?' The sheriff said, 'I will be at the jail.' Defendant replied, 'Well, I will be in and talk to you.' After the telephone conversation, the sheriff left the jail and went into town on an errand. On his way back to the jail, he saw defendant driving down the street in a pick-up truck. The sheriff followed the truck into the jail yard and parked beside defendant's truck. Defendant got out of his truck and into the sheriff's automobile. After some conversation, the sheriff asked defendant if he had a driver's license, to which he replied he did not. The sheriff told defendant that he was placing him under arrest for driving without a license and that he would have to spend the night in jail, and they would see the judge the next morning. Defendant informed the sheriff that it would be necessary to return to the farm and turn out the lights and do some other tasks, and the sheriff said he would attend to those things. Defendant and the sheriff returned to the farm in the sheriff's automobile, leaving defendant's pick-up truck parked in the jail yard. On arrival at the farm, defendant closed some of the buildings, did some other tasks and turned out several lights. After some delay, the defendant went into the house, closed the door and the sheriff heard the latch click. The sheriff requested him to go with him and the defendant refused, stating, 'Get a warrant for me and I will go with you,' and further stated, 'I will go with you if you get a warrant.' Subsequently, a warrant was issued and the defendant taken into custody. An information was filed, charging defendant with two misdemeanors as hereinbefore related.
It is first contended the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for discharge at the close of the state's evidence. Defendant admits his license had been suspended and that he had no legal right to drive a vehicle on the streets. However, he asserts that the sheriff knew his license had been suspended, and he told defendant he would see him at the jail if he came in; that he drove his automobile at the time and place in question at the request of the sheriff, and therefore he was not guilty of the charge. Also, he contends he was not guilty of the second count of the information for the reason that the sheriff had no authority to make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant, and as there was no authorized arrest, defendant could not be guilty of obstructing, resisting and opposing the arrest.
As to defendant's first contention, G.S.1949, 8-262, provides, in pertinent part, that it shall be unlawful for any person whose operator's license has been canceled, suspended, or revoked, to drive any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Genson, No. 121,014
...to the provisions of the Liquor Control Act).More recent cases reflect no change in that time-honored rule. See State v. Merrifield , 180 Kan. 267, 269, 303 P.2d 155 (1956) ; State v. Creamer , 26 Kan. App. 2d 914, 917-18, 996 P.2d 339 (2000). The United States Supreme Court has upheld stri......
-
State v. Mountjoy
...the Fairmont court noted that "the [public welfare] doctrine has been recognized in this jurisdiction many times. (State v. Merrifield, 180 Kan. 267, 303 P.2d 155; State v. Beam, 175 Kan. 814, 267 P.2d 509; State v. Brown, 173 Kan. 166, 244 P.2d 1190; State v. Avery, 111 Kan. 588, 207 Pac. ......
-
State v. Beltran
...defined. State v. Lee, 242 Kan 38, 40, 744 P.2d 845 (1987). The classic characterization of the offense appears in State v. Merrifield, 180 Kan. 267, 270, 303 P.2d 155 (1956):"The statute does not limit the offense to resistance alone. It includes also willful acts of obstruction or opposit......
-
State v. Brown
...committed without the employment of actual violence or direct force.’ " 236 Kan. at 361, 690 P.2d 1353 (quoting State v. Merrifield , 180 Kan. 267, 270–71, 303 P.2d 155 [1956] ). The defendant's act "must have substantially hindered or increased the burden of the officer in carrying out his......