State v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 08 June 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,408 |
| Citation | 63 Kan. 262,65 P. 213 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JAMES BROWN AND RILEY ROBERTSON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1901.
Appeal from Cherokee district court; A. H. SKIDMORE, judge.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE--Information Must be Signed by the County Attorney. Under the laws of this state, no one may be prosecuted upon information for a criminal offense unless such information is signed by the proper prosecuting officer of the state.
Charles Stevens, county attorney, C. B. Skidmore, Charles Smith, and W. R. Cowley, for The State.
E. M Tracewell, and C. A. McNeill, for appellants.
OPINION
The defendants were arrested upon an information charging a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, tried, convicted, sentenced, and appeal. The information upon which the prosecution was had was not signed or presented by the county attorney of the county. The same was presented by one C. B. Skidmore, appointed for that purpose, by order of the district court, and was verified on the oath of one P. Martin, and signed by said Skidmore and Martin. Timely objections were made at all stages of the prosecution, upon the ground that the information was not signed, verified or presented by, and in the name of, an officer of the state authorized to present the pleas of the state. These objections were overruled. The jurisdiction of this court to determine this appeal is challenged by the state.
We have examined the record and find the same not well taken. The questions for determination here are: (1) Under the facts disclosed by this record, did the district court have the power to authorize this prosecution in the name of a private citizen? (2) May a prosecution be conducted, under the circumstances of this case, upon information not signed and presented by a properly constituted law officer of the state?
At common law, it was not necessary for the prosecuting officer to sign, or countersign, the indictment upon which a prosecution was conducted. This rule, however, is changed in this state by statute. It has always been the law of this state that no one shall be prosecuted upon information for a criminal offense unless such information is signed by an officer of the law thereunto duly authorized by law to prosecute such offense. Such is the positive, mandatory provision of the statute. (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 5507; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berg
...256 Pac. 804 (1927); Foley v. Ham, 102 Kan. 66, 169 Pac. 183 (1917); In re Broadhead, 74 Kan. 401, 86 Pac. 458 (1906); State v. Brown, 63 Kan. 262, 65 Pac. 213 (1901); State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161, 165, 37 Pac. 1005 (1894); State v. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189 (1880); Jackson v. State, 4 Kan. 150 Th......
-
State v. Flavin
...or lessened in scope by any statute, or be filled in any other manner than the manner directed by the Constitution." In State v. Brown, 63 Kan. 262, 65 Pac. 213, the court "It has always been the law of this state that no one shall be prosecuted upon information for a criminal offense unles......
-
State ex rel. Rome v. Fountain, 55477
...during the past century. We note, for example, the following cases: State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161, 165, 37 P. 1005 (1894); State v. Brown, 63 Kan. 262, 65 P. 213 (1901); In re Broadhead, 74 Kan. 401, 86 P. 458 In Foley v. Ham, 102 Kan. 66, 169 P. 183 (1917), an examining magistrate refused to......
-
Phillips v. Hoffman, s. 40303
...Reno county was insufficient. He cited State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245, 4 P. 363; State v. Spencer, 43 Kan. 119, 23 P. 159; and State v. Brown, 63 Kan. 262, 65 P. 213, with which rules of law we take no issue, but an examination of those cases shows the situations there were entirely dissimil......