State v. Miner
Decision Date | 06 February 1926 |
Docket Number | 25,963 |
Citation | 243 P. 318,120 Kan. 187 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CARL H. MINER, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1926.
Appeal from Brown district court; C. W. RYAN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL LAW--Preliminary Transcript--Offenses Not Shown--Amendment. Where a defendant is arrested on a charge of statutory rape, and the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination tends to show that he not only committed the offense charged, but also two other similar offenses against the same prosecutrix, the defendant may be informed on and prosecuted on all three such offenses notwithstanding the transcript of the justice merely recited a finding that the crime of statutory rape had been committed and that there was reasonable cause to believe the defendant guilty of such offense; and it is held that no prejudicial irregularity transpired in the trial court in calling the examining magistrate as a witness to testify that some testimony had been presented at the preliminary examination tending to show that defendant had committed a number of such offenses on the same female, and that he recalled some evidence tending to show three such offenses; nor was it error to permit the justice to amend his transcript to recite a finding that such three separate and distinct offenses of statutory rape had been committed and that the defendant was probably guilty thereof.
2. SAME--Successive Offenses--Sentence to Run Consecutively. Following a prosecution and conviction for three such independent offenses, under the circumstances set forth in syllabus 1, a judgment imposing three separate sentences, to run consecutively, was not erroneous, and no prejudicial error was committed in overruling defendant's motion to quash the information nor in overruling his plea in abatement.
T. A. Moxcey, of Atchison, and S. F. Newlon, of Hiawatha, for the appellant.
Charles B. Griffith, attorney-general, C. A. Burnett, assistant attorney-general, and Caleb F. Bowron, county attorney, for the appellee; W. F. Means, of Hiawatha, of counsel.
The defendant was convicted on three counts of the felony of statutory rape, and three separate sentences therefor were imposed on him, which are to run consecutively.
The errors assigned in defendant's behalf center about the questioned sufficiency of his preliminary examination to justify his being subjected to prosecution on more than one count.
The facts were these: Defendant was arrested on a charge of having committed the statutory offense on the day of , 1923. At the preliminary hearing, evidence was introduced tending to show that defendant had committed this crime in July, 1923, culminating in the birth of a child in April, 1924. There was also some testimony of a similar crime against the same female in 1922, and again in October, 1923. The justice bound him over to the district court, the transcript reading:
An information in three counts was filed against defendant, pursuant to the facts developed at the preliminary examination. Defendant filed a plea in abatement based on the alleged want of a preliminary examination "as to the matters charged." The plea was supported by affidavit, and the complaint and warrant charging one offense and the transcript of the justice were offered in evidence. To resist the plea, the state called the justice as a witness, and he testified that the evidence tended to show that defendant had committed the offense on the girl a number of times:
Pursuant to this ruling, the justice amended his transcript by interlineation, so as to recite a finding that the crime of statutory rape had been committed on the prosecutrix--
"On the day of , 1922, also on the day of July, 1923, and also on the day of October, 1923, and that there was reasonable cause to believe the defendant guilty," etc.
Defendant also filed a motion to quash the first count of the information invoking in principle, but not specifically, the statute of limitations. Before this motion was ruled on, the state obtained leave to amend the information instanter by inserting the word "May" in the first count so as to name the month in which the first offense was committed. The information was then reverified. Thereupon the plea in abatement and motion to quash were overruled.
Then followed a trial, conviction, denial of a new trial, consecutive sentences on three counts, and this appeal.
Defendant contends that he should not have been put on his trial on the first and third counts, since he was not bound over to answer on the charges involved therein and was bound over only to answer on but one offense--the one the county attorney and the prosecutrix had in mind when the complaint was filed and the warrant for his arrest was issued.
A majority of this court hold that defendant's contention lacks merit. A defendant may be informed against on as many crimes as the evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing tends to show the accused to have committed, whether all of such crimes were charged in the complaint and reiterated in the warrant for his arrest or not.
It has also been settled in this jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Eason
... ... Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 P ... 891; State v. Warner, 60 Kan. 94, 55 P. 342; ... State v. Bell, 107 Kan. 707, 193 P. 373; State ... v. John Handrub, 113 Kan. 12, 213 P. 827; State v ... Saindon, 117 Kan. 122, 230 P. 301; State v ... Hamilton, 119 Kan. 564, 240 P. 416; State v ... Miner, 120 Kan. 187, 243 P. 318.' ... In this ... case defendant might very well have been proven guilty on the ... second count and not on the first or vice versa. The trial ... court committed no error in overruling defendant's motion ... to compel the state to elect ... ...
-
State v. Jenkins, 42092
...has consistently allowed the amendment of a preliminary hearing transcript. (Uhock v. Hand, 182 Kan. 419, 320 P.2d 794; State v. Miner, 120 Kan. 187, 243 P. 318; and State v. Handrub, 113 Kan. 12, 213 P. In State v. Howland, 153 Kan. 352, 110 P.2d 801, we said: '* * * It has been said on ma......
-
State v. Oberst
...in the district court on this showing. (State v. Handrub, 113 Kan. 12, 213 P. 827; Hancock v. Nye, 118 Kan. 384, 234 P. 945; State v. Miner, 120 Kan. 187, 243 P. 318.) What testimony of the justice did develop was the indispensable need of a competent and courageous attorney to give absolut......
-
Wiebe v. Hudspeth
... ... binding upon petitioner because they were not substantiated ... by any other evidence. Respondent, the warden of the State ... Penitentiary at Lansing, in his return, denied all of the ... allegations of the petition and said that the petitioner was ... legally ... 12, 213 P. 827; State v ... Saindon, 117 Kan. 122, 230 P. 301; State v ... Hamilton, 119 Kan. 564, 240 P. 416; State v ... Miner, 120 Kan. 187, 243 P. 318.' To the same ... general effect is State v. Toelkes, 139 Kan. 682, 33 ... P.2d 317 ... We hold ... that the ... ...