State v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 10 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | 22,527 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. LEW PHILLIPS, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1920.
Appeal from Johnson district court; JABEZ O. RANKIN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. LARCENY -- Names of Witnesses Indorsed on Information During Trial. After the state had rested and the defense had moved for a discharge, the county attorney asked permission to indorse on the information the name of a witness and put him on the stand, stating that he had no knowledge of his name until after the jury had been brought into the box; that he was informed of the materiality of his testimony, but was unable to get his name, and did not learn it until the permission was asked. The trial court granted the request which was before the defense had introduced any testimony, counsel making no request for time or claim of surprise. Held, not error.
2. SAME--Value of Stolen Property--Judicial Notice. This court will not assume to be more ignorant than everybody else, but will take judicial notice of the fact, which everybody else knows, that a five-passenger Ford touring car, 1918 model, used six weeks, and sold, by the parties who stole it, for $ 200, was worth more than $ 20.
3. SAME -- Evidence -- Nonconsent. The testimony sufficiently showed nonconsent of the owner and the guilt of the defendant.
John T. Little, and C. B. Little, both of Olathe, for the appellant.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, C. W. Gorsuch, county attorney, and J. D. Johnston, of Olathe, for the appellee.
The defendant, convicted of having stolen a Ford touring car, appeals and assigns as error the ruling of the trial court in permitting the name of a witness to be indorsed on the information after the state had rested; in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant; and in denying a motion for a new trial.
After the state had rested and the defense had moved for a discharge, the county attorney asked leave to indorse on the information the name of a witness and to put him on the stand, stating that he had no knowledge of his name until after the jury had been brought into the box; that he was informed of the materiality of his evidence, but not of his name until request was made, which was before the defense had introduced any evidence. The record does not indicate that the defendant was prejudiced by the mere time when the name was indorsed, or that any request was made for delay on account thereof, and we see no abuse of discretion in the permission granted. (See The State v. Pack, ante, p. 188.)
The other complaints are based on a claim of insufficient evidence of value, and on failure to show nonconsent of the owner to the taking of his car. It is difficult to keep a straight face while disposing of these contentions. The property was described in the information as a Ford touring car, model 1918, and the owner testified, without dispute that it was a five-passenger Ford touring car run only six weeks. We must not assume to be more ignorant than everybody else, and everybody else knows that such a car is worth more than $ 20. The defendant himself testified, without objection or dispute, that it was sold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lawrence
...found, certain language of which seems to indicate that the court could take judicial notice of the value of the car, State v. Phillips, 106 Kan. 192, 186 P. 743, 744, the court said: 'We must not assume to be more ignorant than everybody else, and everybody else knows that such a car is wo......
-
State v. Logue
...P. 966.)" (p. 863; see, also, The State v. Hoerr, 88 Kan. 573, 129 P. 153; The State v. Pack, 106 Kan. 188, 186 P. 742; The State v. Phillips, 106 Kan. 192, 186 P. 743.) judgment is affirmed. ...
-
State v. Gomez
...Cal.2d 699, 172 P.2d 18 (1946), judicial notice may be taken of the fact that an item of personal property has some value. In The State v. Phillips, 106 Kan. 192, Syl. p 2, 186 P. 743 (1920), this court took judicial notice that a slightly used five-passenger touring car was worth more than......
-
State v. Mathes
...196 P. 607 108 Kan. 488 THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JESSE F. MATHES, Appellant No. 22,694Supreme Court of KansasMarch 12, 1921 ... Decided ... January, 1921 ... Appeal ... from Phillips district court; WILLIAM S. LANGMADE, judge ... Judgment affirmed ... SYLLABUS ... BY THE COURT ... 1 ... CRIMINAL LAW--Obtaining Property by False ... Pretenses--Sufficiency of Information. The information ... sufficiently charged the crime ... ...