State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 08 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,740 |
| Citation | 87 Kan. 454,124 P. 361 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. J. E. MILLER, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1912.
Appeal from Seward district court.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. COMPLAINT -- Warrant--Arrest--Recognizance--Waiver. By giving a recognizance for his appearance at court without objection to the sufficiency of the warrant, the defendant waives the defect in the verification of the complaint, and the irregularity in issuing the warrant upon a complaint verified only upon information and belief.
2. COMPLAINT -- Unsanitary Condition of Jail. The effect of such waiver is not overcome by a statement in the motion to quash the warrant to the effect that he gave the bond to avoid being confined in a jail which the judge of the district court and the county health officer had condemned as unsanitary and unfit for the confinement of prisoners, and that the judge of the district court was absent from the county at the time of the arrest and defendant had no opportunity to have a motion to quash the warrant passed upon.
3. INFORMATION--Evidence--Variance. The information charged defendant with selling adulterated milk to one H. G Staples. The evidence showed that Staples purchased the milk for a partnership composed of H. G. Staples and another person. Held, no variance.
4. VERDICT--Received in Absence of Defendant--No Error. The offense for which defendant was convicted being a misdemeanor, there was no error in receiving the verdict during his absence from the court room.
F. S. Macy, and C. V. Manatt, for the appellant.
John S. Dawson, attorney-general, Preston Coleman, assistant attorney-general, and Clyde R. Commons, county attorney, for the appellee.
The defendant was convicted on four counts of selling adulterated milk. The first error alleged in his appeal is the overruling of his motion to quash the warrant and recognizance because the complaint was verified only upon information and belief. The complaint was sufficient for all purposes except the issuance of a warrant; and this defect was waived by the giving of a recognizance without objection. The defendant was discharged from custody and the warrant upon which he had been arrested became from that time of no force or effect.
In The State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375, 11 P. 163, it was said:
"We think when the defendant entered into a recognizance for his appearance at court, without making any objection to the sufficiency of the warrant, or the sufficiency of the information, or the sufficiency of the verification thereof, he waived the supposed defects in the verification of the information and the irregularity in issuing the warrant without a sufficient verification." (p. 377.)
In his motion to quash, the defendant alleged certain facts which it is claimed, take his case out of the rule declared in the foregoing decisions. These are, that he was compelled to give bond or be incarcerated in a jail which had been condemned by the judge of the district court and the health officer of Seward county as unsanitary and unfit for the confinement of any person and as dangerous to the health of any person confined therein; that by reason of the absence of the judge of the district court from the county at the time of the arrest the defendant had no opportunity to present a motion to quash the complaint. He concedes that if he had been given a preliminary examination, or if he had been a fugitive from justice, the complaint, verified as it was, would have been sufficient. Under the facts stated he contends that his rights as guaranteed by article 4 of the amendments to the constitution of the United States and by section 15 of the bill of rights of the constitution of Kansas have been violated. The guarantee relied upon is that "no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." No reason is suggested why the defendant might not have refused to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Addington
...voluntarily gave bond for appearance at his preliminary hearing at a later date. (State v. Munson, 111 Kan. 318, 206 P. 749; State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P. 361; State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375, 11 P. 163; 2 Hatcher's Kansas Digest (Rev.Ed.), Criminal Law § 87.) The only objection defend......
-
City of Wichita v. Hibbs
... ... appellant when he, without objection, gave bond for his ... appearance in court. See, State v. Dye, 148 Kan ... 421, 429, 83 P.2d 113; State v. Toelkes, 139 Kan ... 682, 685, 33 P.2d 317; State ex rel. v. Strevey, 138 ... Kan. 646, 648, 27 P.2d 253; State v. Carter, 122 ... Kan. 524, 253 P. 551; State v. Edwards, 93 Kan. 598, ... 144 P. 1009 and State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P ... 361. Waived also by that action, as well as the subsequent ... execution of the appeal bond, was any right to object to ... ...
-
State v. Barry, 41115
...For some of our decisions supporting this conclusion see State v. White, 76 Kan. 654, 657, 92 P. 829, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 556; State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P. 361; State v. Edwards, 93 Kan. 598, 144 P. 1009; State v. Cole, 93 Kan. 819, 821, 150 P. 233; State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524, 253 P.......
-
State v. Kelly, 47097
...only counsel present. State v. Hall, 138 Kan. 460, 26 P.2d 265, Syl. 1. See, also, State v. Bland, 91 Kan. 160, 136 P. 947; State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P. 361; State v. Forner, 75 Kan. 423, 89 P. 674. And cf. State v. Cade, 210 Kan. 544, 502 P.2d 782, where we held that appearance by ......