State v. Platz
| Citation | 214 Kan. 74,519 P.2d 1097 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47082,47082 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ronald PLATZ, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The issue on appeal in a criminal case 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 a light most favorable to the state.
2. A party cannot successfully assert as error the admission of testimony which he has elicited in his own behalf on cross-examination.
3. On appeal this court will not consider allegations of prejudicial publicity claimed to have affected the fairness and impartiality of the trial proceedings where the defendant neither sought a change of venue below nor raised any objection to such publicity during the trial.
4. Acts done or declarations made before, during or after the happening of the principal fact may be admissible as part of the res gestae where such are so closely connected with it as to form in reality a part of the occurrence.
5. Forcible rape and adultery are separate and distinct crimes, since proof of one necessarily disproves the other.
6. The record is examined on appeal from a conviction of forcible rape and it is held, no error.
Marlin A. White, Holton, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Tracy D. Klinginsmith, Co. Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for the appellee.
The defendant, Ronald Platz, was tried by a jury and convicted of forcible rape as defined by K.S.A.1970 Supp. 21-3502(1)(a). He was sentenced pursuant to K.S.A.1970 Supp. 21-4501 and 21-4504 as a second felony offender for a period of a minimum term of ten (10) years and a maximum term of forty (40) years. This is a direct appeal from this conviction and sentence.
The defendant first urges error by contending the state failed to establish the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The state correctly points out that this issue on appeal in a criminal case 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 a light most favorable to the state. See State v. Hill,211 Kan. 239, 505 P.2d 704, and State v. Mans, 213 Kan. 36, 515 P.2d 810.
We do not need to set forth the testimony in the record for a review of the testimony of the victim establishes all the essential elements of forcible rape. She testified she was forcibly ejected from defendant's vehicle at a roadside park, that she resisted defendant's attempts until her resistance was overcome by force, fear and threats to use a gun. She testified as to the act of sexual intercourse with the defendant under these circumstances. Her testimony was corroborated in certain particulars by the testimony of defendant's companion who assisted the defendant in completing the crime and by the testimony of the victim's husband who heard her cries for help as he drove by the scene of the crime. This evidence was more than sufficient for this court to say a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt was established.
The defendant next contends that error was committed during the trial when testimony was permitted which pertained to other criminal charges pending against the defendant. The incident arose during the trial when defendant's counsel was cross-examining defendant's accomplice, Kenneth McGranahan. In response to questioning McGranahan testified that he and the defendant had been apprehended on other charges in Wabaunsee County and that the defendant had informed the law enforcement authorities he was involved in the incident. There was no further elaboration. There was no request to have the statement stricken.
A party cannot successfully assert as error the admission of testimony which he has elicited in his own behalf on cross-examination. (State v. Mallett, 192 Kan. 154, 156, 386 P.2d 214; see also State v. Runnels, 203 Kan. 513, 518, 456 P.2d 16; State v. Garcia & Bell, 210 Kan. 806, 813, 504 P.2d 172.) Consequently this contention is without merit.
The third issue raised by defendant is based on the claim of publicity surrounding a murder charge filed against defendant in another county. The matter was first raised in defendant's motion for a new trial. In denying this claim the trial court stated:
A review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McDaniel
...an intention to cover up or conceal all traces of the burglary and resulting theft." The opinion of the court in State v. Platz, 214 Kan. 74, 76-77, 519 P.2d 1097, 1100 (1974), bears directly upon this point, where the court "Since the firearm was used to assist in carrying out the crime an......
-
State v. Wilkins
...evidence was sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in a light most favorable to the state. (State v. Platz, 214 Kan. 74, Syl. 1, 519 P.2d 1097; State v. Austin, 209 Kan. 4, Syl. 2, 495 P.2d 960.) The patrol officer testified defendant had possession of......
-
State v. Porter
...v. Black, 221 Kan. 248, 559 P.2d 784; Green v. State, supra; State v. Gander, supra; State v. Cameron & Bentley, supra; State v. Platz, 214 Kan. 74, 519 P.2d 1097; State v. Randol, supra.) A brief affidavit which states only conclusions is not sufficient to support a change of venue. (State......
-
State v. Salazar-Moreno
...to enter an amended journal entry that reflected only one conviction. 2019 WL 5485179, at *4.Salazar-Moreno relies upon State v. Platz , 214 Kan. 74, 519 P.2d 1097 (1974), for the proposition that adultery and rape are mutually exclusive crimes. In Platz , our Supreme Court held that the cr......