State v. Perry
| Citation | 171 P. 1150,102 Kan. 896 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21,641 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TOM PERRY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1918.
Appeal from Cowley district court; OLIVER P. FULLER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Information--Separate Charges--Plea of Not Guilty--Preliminary Examination--Waiver. Where a defendant joins issue on several charges set forth in an information by a plea of not guilty, and proceeds to a trial of such charges without raising a question as to the sufficiency of a preliminary examination and that no examination had been held on one of the charges, an objection upon that ground after conviction comes too late.
2. SAME--Evidence. The evidence in the case held to be sufficient to sustain the conviction.
W. P Hackney, and L. D. Moore, both of Winfield, for the appellant.
S. M. Brewster, attorney-general, and J. A. McDermott, county attorney, for the appellee.
Tom Perry was arrested upon a complaint charging him with (1) a felonious sale of intoxicating liquor, (2) having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and (3) maintaining a nuisance. A preliminary hearing was had, after which he was bound over to the district court. In the order of the justice of the peace the offenses mentioned for which the defendant was to be held for trial were the unlawful sale and the maintaining of a nuisance, but the offenses were referred to as being those charged in the second and third counts of the complaint. The information upon which defendant was tried in the district court set forth three counts corresponding to those of the complaint. The defendant went to trial without objection to the information, and joined issue on all the offenses charged, by plea of not guilty. Upon the evidence the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged in the first and second counts of the information; that is, for the unlawful sale and for having intoxicating liquor in his possession.
In his appeal defendant contends that he was convicted of an offense for which he did not have a preliminary examination. There was some confusion in the record of the examining magistrate in that he found that a felonious sale had been committed by defendant as charged in the second count, whereas that charge was contained in the first count. Then he held him for keeping a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors which was charged in the third count, and, as we have seen, the jury found him guilty on the first and second counts, which charged a sale and the keeping of liquors in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCarther
...supra; Jennings v. State, supra; State v. Blakesley, 43 Kan. 250, 23 P. 570; State v. White, supra; State v. Woods, supra; State v. Perry, 102 Kan. 896, 171 P. 1150; State v. Wisdom, 99 Kan. 802, 162 P. 1174; Uhock v. Hand, 182 Kan. 419, 422, 320 P.2d 794.) Moreover, a motion to quash or di......
-
State v. Pittman
...the subject of preliminary examination is no longer material (State v. Bowman, 80 Kan. 473, 103 P. 84; State v. Perry, supra, (102 Kan. 896, 171 P. 1150); State v. Saindon, supra, (117 Kan. 122, 230 P. 301); State v. Wallgren, 144 Kan. 10, 11, 58 P.2d 74), and a defendant cannot raise objec......
-
State v. Osburn, 38353
...not guilty, and went to trial on the information. Thereafter, under our decisions, the subject of preliminary examination, State v. Perry, 102 Kan. 896, 171 P. 1150 and State v. Wallgren, 144 Kan. 10, 11, 58 P.2d 74, was no longer We find nothing else of importance in the case. It follows t......
-
State v. Freeman
...195 Kan. 313, 403 P.2d 959; State v. Osburn, 171 Kan. 330, 232 P.2d 451, State v. Wallgren, 144 Kan. 10, 58 P.2d 74; and State v. Perry, 102 Kan. 896, 171 P. 1150. We have examined cases cited by defendant and find none to be applicable to the circumstances reflected by the record Defendant......