State v. Motor, 48100
| Decision Date | 12 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48100,48100 |
| Citation | 551 P.2d 783,220 Kan. 99 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. William A. MOTOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Whether the state may endorse the names of additional witnesses on the information during the trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse prejudicing the rights of the defendant.
2. The credibility of the state's chain of custody of physical evidence was a question for the jury.
3. One who counsels, aids or abets in the commission of an offense may be charged, tried and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal.
4. This court has long followed the rule that when a verdict is challenged for insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case the issue on appeal is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the evidence is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the state.
5. In a prosecution for burglary, the record is examined and it is held no trial errors are disclosed which would justify the granting of a new trial.
Ted L. Peters, Burchfiel & Peters, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Christopher A. Randall, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., Keith Sanborn, Dist. Atty., and Robert L. Kennedy, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of burglary in violation of the provisions of K.S.A. 21-3715. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of possession of burglary tools.
Shortly after 3:00 o'clock a. m., June 7, 1974, a report was received by the Wichita Police Department of a burglary in progress at Kilkenny's Pharmacy, 4004 West Central, Wichita, Kansas. Officers Wattenbarger and Dickerson were dispatched to the location Officer Dickerson covered the front of the building while Officer Wattenbarger went to the rear.
Officer Wattenbarger used his flashlight to check out the back of the buildings and in so doing, he observed movement behind an air conditioner compressor next to the back door of a shop known as Wigs and Fashion by Darlene. He ordered whoever was behind the compressor to come out. The person who came out was the defendant, William A. Motor. A pair of blue rubber garden-type gloves were removed from the defendant's hands. Leonard A. Schmidt was apprehended crouched on the floor in the front of a station wagon parked in a lot adjoining Kilkenny's Pharmacy. Other police officers, who had arrived, apprehended Michael D. White and William D. Killion in the building.
The police investigation revealed that the back door to the wig shop was broken and that a hole had been knocked through the concrete party wall separating the wig shop and Kilkenny's Pharmacy. The Wichita Police Department laboratory investigator found a small sledgehammer, an axe, and a .25 caliber automatic pistol lying on the floor of the wig shop. The investigator also found a .38 caliber revolver under the front seat of the station wagon in which Leonard Schmidt was found.
Other facts will be presented in more detail as we discuss the issues to which they apply.
The defendant first contends the district court erred in permitting the state to endorse William D. Killion as a witness for the reason the defendant was given no notice of the state's intention to do so and he was forced to argue the same without adequate time for preparation and without adequate time to investigate and interview the witness.
It will be remembered that William D. Killion was one of the four individuals apprehended at the scene of the crime. The endorsement was made at the inception of the trial, but before any evidence was received.
The statute providing for endorsing witnesses (K.S.A.1973 Supp. 22-3201(6)) reads:
This court had occasion to consider the last sentence of the statute in State v. Blocker, 211 Kan. 185, 505 P.2d 1099, and stated:
(i. c. 188, 505 P.2d i. c. 1102.)
See, also, State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 722, 529 P.2d 85, 88.
In State v. Poulos, 196 Kan. 287, 411 P.2d 689, cert. den., 385 U.S. 827, 87 S.Ct. 63, 17 L.Ed.2d 64, we further examined the meaning of 'prejudice' and stressed the burden of proof to be carried by one objecting to any late endorsement:
'We have also held that endorsement of additional names on an information, even during a trial, rests within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and where such endorsement has been permitted material prejudice to the rights of the defendant must clearly be shown before it will constitute reversible error. . . .' (i. c. 291, 411 P.2d i. c. 692.)
It would appear from an examination of the record that the district court was careful to protect the rights of the defendant against prejudice. The record reveals the following with respect to this matter:
The record does not disclose any request for additional time. We fail to find any prejudice to the rights of the defendant.
The defendant contends the district court erred in admitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dupree
...and concluding “there is very little, if any, difference in the meaning of the language used in the two sections.” State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, 102, 551 P.2d 783 (1976). Moreover, we have “consistently held that the State is not required to charge aiding and abetting in the charging documen......
-
State v. Jones
...aiding and abetting the aggravated battery rather than with the substantive offense has been rejected by this court. ( State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, 102, 551 P.2d 783 [1976]; State v. Curtis, 217 Kan. 717, 723, 538 P.2d 1393 [1975]; State v. Turner, 193 Kan. 189, 392 P.2d 863 [1964].)" 221 K......
-
State v. Smolin
...with aiding and abetting the aggravated battery rather than with substantive offense has been rejected by this court. (State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, 102, 551 P.2d 783; State v. Curtis, 217 Kan. 717, 723, 538 P.2d 1383; State v. Turner, 193 Kan. 189, 392 P.2d Defendant further contends there ......
-
State v. Cook, 49966
...of the trial court. See State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. at 729, 561 P.2d 850; State v. Wilson & Wentworth, 221 Kan. 359, Syl. PP 6, 7; State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, Syl. P 1, 551 P.2d 783 (1976). The test in these cases is whether the defendant's rights were prejudiced. Research reveals only one......