State v. Parks
| Decision Date | 03 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30111. |
| Citation | 1 P.2d 261,133 Kan. 568 |
| Parties | STATE v. PARKS. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Evasive witness may be cross-examined by party calling him; extent thereof resting in trial court's discretion.
Where the testimony of a witness in a criminal case tends to show that he is evasive or uncandid, he may be cross-examined by the party calling him, and the extent to which that may be done rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.
That evidence otherwise competent may tend to implicate accused in another offense does not render testimony incompetent.
The fact that testimony which is competent and probative on the question of the defendant's guilt of the crime for which he is on trial may tend to implicate him in some other criminal offense does not render the testimony incompetent nor require its exclusion from the jury's consideration.
Witness appearing unduly forgetful of matters to which he had deposed at statutory inquisition may be sharply catechised to refresh recollection or to impress him with importance of truthfulness.
Where a person who made a statement under oath at a county attorney's statutory inquisition touching certain breaches of the prohibitory law is later called as a witness in a liquor prosecution and there appears to be unduly forgetful of pertinent matters to which he had formerly deposed, he may be sharply catechised concerning them for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and also for the purpose of impressing him with the importance of truthfulness and of the gravity of equivocation and perjury.
Court's oral explanation respecting matters developed in examination of witness to be considered, and matters to be disregarded as evidence, are not "instructions" within statute (Rev. St. 1923, 62--1447).
Oral explanations to the jury, given by the court in the course of a criminal trial touching what matters developed in the examination of a witness are to be considered in evidence and what are to be disregarded as not in evidence, are not instructions within the meaning of the statute (Rev. St 62--1447), which requires the judge to charge the jury in writing touching all matters of law necessary for their information in giving their verdict.
Appeal from District Court, Shawnee County, Division No. 2; George H. Whitcomb, Judge.
Pete Parks was convicted of being a persistent violator of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.
A. M Thomas and E. T. Reynolds, both of Topeka, for appellant.
Roland Boynton, Atty. Gen., R. O. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J Glenn Logan, Co. Atty., and Lester Goodell, Asst. Co. Atty both of Topeka, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of being a persistent violator of the prohibitory law and sentenced to one year's penal servitude.
He assigns various errors which cannot be reviewed because no transcript of the record was obtained and the abstract submitted for our perusal contains none of the testimony except that given by one Clarence Pierson, a witness for the State. A perusal of that testimony tends to show that the prosecuting attorney was not quite satisfied with Pierson's frankness and candor, and, over defendant's objection, the trial court permitted the county attorney to call Pierson's attention to certain pertinent testimony he had theretofore given at a liquor inquisition. The record in part reads:
Defendant contends that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hathaway
... ... Gill, 63 ... Kan. 382, 65 P. 682; State v. Borchert, 68 Kan. 360, ... 74 P. 1108; State v. Labore, 80 Kan. 664, 103 P ... 106; State v. Keehn, 85 Kan. 765, 118 P. 851; ... State v. Evans, 90 Kan. 795, 136 P. 270; State ... v. Dunford, 91 Kan. 898, 139 P. 430; State v ... Parks, 133 Kan. 568, 570, 1 P.2d 261; State v ... Jones, 137 Kan. 273, 20 P.2d 514; State v ... Finney, 141 Kan. 12, 34, 40 P.2d 411 ... Some of ... these had to do with a communication between court and jury ... concerning punishment to be imposed, fully as objectionable ... as ... ...
-
State v. Shaw, 44247
...resentment, explanation, or denial, are ordinarily admissible as some evidence of his consciousness of guilt.' (See, also, State v. Parks, 133 Kan. 568, 1 P.2d 261; 22 A C.J.S. Criminal Law § Whether the statements were made within the hearing of the accused and understood by him, and wheth......
-
State v. Martin, 39055
...The objection lacks merit. See State v. Olthoff, 141 Kan. 70, 85, 40 P.2d 384; State v. Cole, 136 Kan. 381, 15 P.2d 452; State v. Parks, 133 Kan. 568, 1 P.2d 261; State v. Smarsh, 117 Kan. 238, 231 P. 6. Attempted theft of Barth vehicle and theft of McLaughlin and Miller vehicles by unident......
-
State v. Crowe
...in a criminal prosecution is not rendered inadmissible because it may show another or a greater crime than that charged (State v. Parks, 133 Kan. 568, 1 P.2d 261; also, see State v. Minnick, 113 Kan. 385, 214 P. 111). No complaint is made of the court's instructions to the jury respecting t......
-
Avoiding a Quagmire: Acquiescence in a Judgment as a Bar to Appeal by Casey R. Law
...2007 WL 881848 at 4 (Kan. App. March 23, 2007), quoting Younger v. Mitchell, 245 Kan. 204, 209, 777 P.2d 789 (1989). [34] Paulsen, 1 P.2d at 261 (emphasis added). [35] 245 Kan. 204, 207, 777 P.2d 789 (1989). [36] 43 Kan. App. 2d 764, 230 P.3d 452 (2010). [37] Id. at 775 (emphasis in origina......
-
Avoiding a Quagmire
...94,884, 2007 WL 881848 at 4 (Kan. App. March 23, 2007), quoting Younger v. Mitchell, 245 Kan. 204, 209, 777 P.2d 789 (1989). [34]Paulsen, 1 P2d at 261 (emphasis added). [35] 245 Kan. 204, 207, 777 P.2d 789 (1989). [36] 43 Kan. App. 2d 764, 230 P3d 452 (2010). [37] Id. at 775 (emphasis in or......