State v. Satterfield, 45189
| Decision Date | 25 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45189,45189 |
| Citation | 202 Kan. 391,449 P.2d 564 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles E. SATTERFIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a criminal prosecution it is first the function of the jury and of the trial court after verdict to determine what facts are established by the evidence. Before a verdict, which has been approved by the trial court, may be set aside on appeal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence it must be made to clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the trial court.
2. The record in a criminal action is examined and it is held: The evidence presented is sufficient to sustain a conviction of robbery in the first degree.
William J. Spriggs, Wichita, for appellant.
R. K. Hollingsworth, Deputy County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert Londerholm, Atty. Gen., Keith Sanborn, County Atty., and James W. Wilson, Deputy County Atty., with him on briefs for appellee.
This is an appeal in a criminal action wherein the appellant-defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of robbery in the first degree (K.S.A. 21-527). Having had one prior felony conviction the defendant was sentenced under the Habitual Criminal Act for a term of not less than twenty nor more than forty-two years (K.S.A. 21-530 and 21-107a).
The only substantial question presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The evidence establishes that a man with a pistol or revolver in his hand entered the Jack Wheeler Grocery Store in Wichita at about 8:50 p. m. on January 14, 1967, and took $95 from the cash register. Jack Wheeler, owner of the store, his wife and two employees, Leroy Brown and Joe Davis, were in the store at the time. Wheeler testified that he was working in his store with his wife when he heard her yell for him. When he looked up he saw a man with a gun in his hand. Wheeler picked up a meat cleaver but made no attempt to use it. He testified his wife had left the cash drawer open when she was ordered away from the cash register by the man with the gun who scooped up the money and left by the front door. Wheeler followed the man out of the store and observed him going down the street, saw him fall down and roll over and get up and continue on. Wheeler further testified the gun appeared to be a .22 caliber short barrel, black, cylinder type. He observed that the hammer was not cocked at the time of the robbery. Wheeler testified that the man was not disguised at the time of the robbery and identified defendant the same night of the robbery in a police lineup. Wheeler testified that his identification of defendant in court and at the lineup was positive.
Davis, a meat cutter at the store, testified that he also heard Mrs. Wheeler yell at approximately 8:50 p. m. that evening; that he observed a man with a gun, which he thought was a .22 caliber pistol, the man took the money and left by the front door. Davis further testified that at the time of the holdup he was told to lie down on the floor. He identified the defendant at the police station lineup on the night of the robbery and also made an identification of defendant in the courtroom.
Brown, a butcher at the store, corroborated Wheeler's testimony. Brown also identified defendant in court and at the police station lineup. On cross- examination Brown conceded that he did not know if the gun was capable of firing.
William A. Cornwell, a detective for the Wichita Police Department, testified that he arrested defendant at 10:45 p. m. on the night in question at 2023 North Volutsia, which was later identified as defendant's home. Cornwell was present at the police lineup and testified as to the circumstances and identifications made by Wheeler, Davis and Brown. He further testified that when defendant was arrested a lady named Bernice who was present said that defendant had been there all evening except when he left to go to a liquor store about 9 p. m. Cornwell also stated that 2023 North Volutsia is about twenty-five blocks from the Wheeler store.
Although he filed no plea of alibi, defendant claims he could not have been at the store at the time of the robbery. He took the stand in his own behalf. He admitted two previous convictions of robbery but denied his guilt in the instant case. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brunson
...presumed to have believed the state's evidence and to have drawn from it all inferences favorable to the state." See State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 391, 449 P.2d 564 (1969); State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 422 P.2d 898 In essence, the jury chose to believe the version of events offered by the ......
-
State v. Cippola
...whatever is there substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the lower court.' (Syl. 3.) See, also, State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 391, 449 P.2d 564. It is next contended the district court erred in overruling the defendant's motion to declare a mistrial, based upon his claim......
-
State v. Ridge, 47477
...it is presumed to have believed the state's evidence and to have drawn from it all inferences favorable to the state. State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 391, 449 P.2d 564; State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 442 P.2d If the jury gave credence to the testimony of the shop's manager and sales clerk it w......
-
State v. Nelson, 46139
...attempts to show he was not a participant in the robbery, conflicts in evidence are to be resolved by the jury. In State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 391, 449 P.2d 564, it was '* * * it has been repeatedly stated that in criminal prosecution it is first the function of the jury and then that of......