State v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 12 May 1899 |
| Citation | 57 P. 135,8 Kan.App. 686 |
| Parties | STATE v. SNYDER |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
1. The information set forth held sufficient.
2. "Where a defendant in a criminal case takes the witness stand to testify in his own behalf, he assumes the character of a witness and is entitled to the same privileges, and subject to the same tests, and to be contradicted discredited, or impeached, the same as any other witness." State v. Pfefferle, 12 P. 406, 36 Kan. 90.
3. Where the state relies solely for a conviction upon the testimony of professional detectives employed by the prosecuting attorney, and the trial court, in its charge to the jury, calls special attention to the testimony of defendant, and the rule for determining the weight to be given it, and refuses to give the rule for determining the weight to be given the testimony of professional detectives held to be error.
Appeal from district court, Harvey county; M. P. Simpson, Judge.
J. A. Snyder was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Reversed.
Bowman & Bucher, for appellant.
L. C. Boyle, Atty. Gen., and W. S. Allen, Co. Atty., for the State.
The appellant was charged in one count with, tried and convicted in the district court of Harvey county of, a violation of the prohibitory law. The information was sworn to positively by the county attorney, and, omitting the caption, is as follows: "I, W. S. Allen, the undersigned, county attorney of said county, in the name, by the authority, and on behalf of the state of Kansas, come now here, and give the court to understand and be informed that on the 25th day of August, A.D. 1897, in said county of Harvey and state of Kansas, one J. A. Snyder did then and there, unlawfully, without having taken out a permit from the probate judge of said county, bargain, sell, and give away intoxicating liquor, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Kansas."
The first and second assignments of error are: First, the court erred in overruling the motion to quash the information; second, the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to require the prosecution to file with the information a bill of particulars. In support of these assignments, our attention is called to the case of State v. Burkett, 51 Kan. 177, 32 P. 925. In this case there were no words used in the information negativing the exception clause in the statute, and the rule stated by Justice Allen cannot be applied to the information in the case now under consideration. The information set forth in this opinion is sufficient. The objections of appellant are covered by the following decisions of our supreme court: State v. Whisner, 35 Kan. 271, 10 P. 852; State v. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 500; State v. Lindgrove, 1 Kan.App. 51, 41 P. 688.
It is further contended that the trial court erred in permitting the county attorney to cross-examine the defendant as to his conduct with reference to handling liquor at any other time than the sale alleged as shown by the witnesses for the state. We have examined the evidence, and cannot say that there was error of law or abuse of discretion in the cross-examination permitted by the trial court. It is well settled in this state "that, where a defendant in a criminal prosecution has offered himself as a witness in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined to the same extent as any other witness." State v. Lewis, 56 Kan. 374, 43 P. 265.
The only witnesses introduced by the state were two detectives Pineo and...
To continue reading
Request your trial