State v. O'Shea
Decision Date | 08 July 1899 |
Docket Number | 11401 |
Citation | 60 Kan. 772,57 P. 970 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. PATRICK O'SHEA |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1899.
Appeal from Sedgwick district court; D. M. DALE, judge.
STATEMENT.
On January 6, 1898, an information was filed in the district court of Sedgwick county charging Patrick O'Shea with an assault on James Dawson with intent to kill him. A trial of the charge resulted in a conviction and a sentence to the penitentiary for a term of eight years. He appealed from the conviction and judgment, and upon a review in the supreme court the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. ( The State v. O'Shea, 59 Kan. 593, 53 P. 876.) After the reversal and on September 13, 1898, Dawson died, after which a new information was filed, charging O'Shea with the murder of Dawson. At the trial the state offered in evidence what purports to be a dying declaration of Dawson, and the court admitted the greater part of it, stating that the excluded part might become competent in rebuttal. The part received at the opening of the trial is as follows:
Objections were made to the reception of the declaration, and to every paragraph, sentence and word of the same, and special complaint is made of the portions of the declaration which are italicized.
After the testimony of the defendant had been offered, the state was permitted to read the remainder of the dying declaration, which was first omitted, and which is as follows:
Objections were made to rulings on testimony preliminary to the introduction of the dying declaration, and also to the exclusion of testimony tending to discredit and impeach the declaration itself. The trial resulted in a conviction for murder in the second degree, and the defendant was sentenced to thirty years in the state penitentiary. He appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.
A. A. Godard, attorney-general, S. B. Amidon, county attorney, and J. F. Conly, for The State.
Adams & Adams, and R. R. Vermilion, for the appellant.
The first objection brought to our attention in this review is to the rulings of the court on challenges of persons called to serve as jurors. Some of them stated on their voir dire that they had formed opinions as to the commission of the offense charged, but it appears upon further examination that the opinions so formed did not extend beyond the fact that O'Shea had fired the fatal shots. The fact that Dawson was shot by O'Shea, and that death resulted from the shooting, was not disputed. Throughout the trial the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wratislaw v. State
...5 N.E. 203, 55 Am. Rep. 218; Archibald v. State, 122 Ind. 122, 23 N.E. 758; State v. Baldwin, 79 Iowa, 714, 45 N.W. 297; State v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 P. 970; Walston v. Com., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 15; Leiber Com., 9 Bush (Ky.) 11; Pace v. Com., 89 Ky. 204, 12 S.W. 271; Starr v. Com., 97 Ky. ......
-
State v. Hooper
...innocence of the defendant. It was held the court committed no substantial error in overruling the challenges for cause. In State v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 P. 970, pertinent syllabus reads: "The mere fact that a person called as a juror had formed or expressed an opinion that the defendant......
-
State v. Doris
...4 Ency.Ev. 1005; Gillette, Collat.Ev. § 198; Savage et al. v. State, 18 Fla. 909; State v. Perigo, 80 Iowa, 37, 45 N.W. 399; State v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 P. 970; Goodall v. State, 1 Or. 333, 80 Am.Dec. State v. Eddon, 8 Wash. 292, 36 P. 139. When it is remembered that the defendant is d......
- State v. Williams