State v. Ontjes
| Decision Date | 06 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 25,361 |
| Citation | 224 P. 492,115 Kan. 538 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. URBAN EVANS and DAVID ONTJES, Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1924.
Appeal from Rice district court; CLYDE R. DOUGLASS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CRIMINAL LAW--Burglary--Evidence--Ability of Bloodhounds to Follow a Human Trail. Evidence concerning the ability of a pair of bloodhounds to follow a human trail is held to have been admissible and sufficient to form a basis for testimony tending to show they had followed a trail from the scene of a burglary to the home of the defendants.
2. SAME--Photographs as Evidence. Where a photograph is offered in evidence it is proper practice to introduce preliminary evidence that it is an accurate representation of the object photographed.
3. SAME--Cross-examination of Defendant Concerning Former Plea of Guilty of Larceny. The striking out of an affirmative answer to the question asked on cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal case whether he had pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny is not prejudicial.
4. SAME--No Error in Instructions Concerning Bloodhounds--Evidence. It is held that no material error was committed in the giving and refusal of instructions concerning evidence of the conduct of bloodhounds and circumstantial evidence generally.
D. A Banta, of Great Bend, for the appellants.
C. B. Griffith, attorney-general, John F. Rhodes, assistant attorney-general, and Bronce Jackson, county attorney, for the appellee.
Urban Evans and David Ontjes were convicted of burglary and appeal.
The evidence tended to show these facts: A store was broken into at night and a quantity of clothing stolen. The next day a part of the stolen property was found hidden in a haystack half or three-quarters of a mile from the house where the defendants lived, another sack of clothing being later found at a somewhat greater distance from the house in the opposite direction--away from the store. On that day bloodhounds were taken to the window through which the entrance to the store had been made and told to "hunt them up." They appeared to strike a trail which they followed to and around the stack referred to and then on to the defendants' home, where they ran up to Ontjes, who was coming from a water tank with a bucket in his hand. The officers then, learning of the finding of the clothing, took the hounds to the place where the second portion referred to had been found, and there gave them the scent of some shirts forming a part of the stolen goods. The hounds again took up the trail and followed it back to the defendants' home. Shoes of the defendants were found to fit footprints near the haystack.
1. Complaint is made that the man who handled the bloodhounds was permitted to give his opinion as to their qualifications to follow a trail, instead of stating the facts upon which the jury could form their own judgment of the matter. The witness said he had been training, handling and using bloodhounds for fifteen years; that he knew the qualifications of the two dogs used in this case with reference to following human trails; that the conditions existing were such as to offer "just a medium trail" for the dogs. He was asked what their qualifications were and over objection answered "accurate." Asked if he knew of any better strain of dog for following human tracks he said they were the best--"said to be by old timers." A motion was made to strike out the quoted words and after a discussion which resulted in a reframing of the question he answered again--"They are the best." The witness having given his opinion that the dogs were of the best strain his statement that old timers had said so was not very important and was practically withdrawn by the court's requirement that the question should be restated. We think there was a substantial compliance with the rule under which evidence of the conduct of bloodhounds is admissible. ( The State v. Adams, 85 Kan. 435, 116 P. 608.)
2. Complaint is made of the admission of testimony that photographs offered by the state were correct, the objection being that they spoke for themselves. The only portion of the appellants' abstract bearing on the matter reads "The witness F. R. Hays, was permitted, over the objection of the defendants, to look at a picture, and tell whether it was a correct representation of what he saw, stating his conclusions in relation to the matter, instead of requiring him to give a verbal picture of what he witnessed." Photographs taken in the ordinary way are of course an accurate record of the image cast by the lens upon the plate or film, but as distortion is possible through the manner in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terrell v. State
...144 P. 228 (1914); State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746, 168 P. 1112 (1917); State v. Schalansky, 112 Kan. 87, 209 P. 816 (1955); State v. Evans, 115 Kan. 538, 224 P. 492; State v. Fixley, 118 Kan. 1, 233 P. 796 (1925); State v. Netherton, 133 Kan. 685, 3 P.2d 495 (1931)Kentucky-Pedigo v. Commonwea......
-
State v. Wilkins
...and more convincing than the testimony of witnesses who, albeit unwittingly, may not have been telling the truth. (State v. Evans, 115 Kan. 538, 541, 224 P. 492.) This declaration accords with the concept, generally held, that circumstantial evidence may be more trustworthy than eyeball tes......
-
State v. Linebarger, 7613
...error in the admission of these exhibits. Stokes v. Long, 52 Mont. 470, 159 P. 28; State v. Roberts, 28 Nev. 350, 82 P. 100; State v. Evans, 115 Kan. 538, 224 P. 492; State v. Jones, 48 Mont. 505, 139 P. 441; State v. Reding, 52 Idaho 260, 13 P.2d 253; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 852; Mow v.......
- State v. Scott