State v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 05 July 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,097 |
| Citation | 69 P. 335,65 Kan. 371 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. ED. A. STEWART |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1902.
Appeal from Greenwood district court; G. P. AIKMAN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CRIMINAL LAW -- Evidence of Conduct after Commission of Offense. The facts of flight, concealment, disguise denial of identity, change of name, and like acts, done by one accused of crime, after the commission of the offense, may be received in evidence, with all the other facts and circumstances in the case, as bearing on the question of the guilt of defendant.
T. C. Turner, for The State.
L. H. Johnson, for appellant.
OPINION
Appellant was arrested and tried on a charge of grand larceny in the stealing of cattle, and from a judgment of conviction appeals. A motion to dismiss the appeal is filed. The motion is not well taken and is therefore denied.
Many grounds are relied on by counsel for appellant to work a reversal of the judgment of conviction. We shall give separate notice to one only. An examination of the record shows that the others cannot be sustained. The larceny occurred in August, 1899. Defendant was arrested in June 1901. As part of its case in chief, the state offered one Benson, cashier of a bank in El Dorado, to prove that, since the commission of the offense and shortly before the arrest, defendant had transacted business with the bank, and in so doing had stated his name to be William Jacks, and had signed different papers in that name, and, also, had stated his residence to be near the town of Beaumont, whereas, in fact, he had never resided in that section of the country. The record also contains evidence that defendant, in dealing with the stolen cattle and in offering the same for sale, had stated his name to be Roper. It is earnestly insisted by counsel for appellant that this evidence of the witness Benson was offered by the state for the purpose of establishing the bad character of defendant before his character was put in issue by proof of good character; and, further, that the evidence of this witness was offered by the state to prove defendant guilty of a purely collateral offense. An examination of the record, however, clearly shows that the evidence of Benson was neither offered nor received for this purpose, but for the purpose of establishing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitney
... ... determining the guilt or innocence of an accused, and the ... court may properly so instruct the jury. (People v ... Armstrong, 114 Cal. 570, 46 P. 611; State v ... Davis, 6 Idaho 159, 53 P. 678; People v. Cox, ... 29 Cal.App. 419, 155 P. 1010; State v. Stewart, 65 Kan. 371, ... 69 P. 335.) ... In a ... prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, the ... circumstances connected with the transaction, the entire ... conduct of the accused, and his declarations to other persons ... are held proper matters to consider as furnishing ... ...
-
State v. Martin, 39055
...means of the flight of Martin. Flight from the scene of a crime by the one who perpetrates it may always be shown. In State v. Stewart, 65 Kan. 371, 69 P. 335, it was 'The fact of flight, concealment, disguise, denial of identity, change of name, and like acts done by one accused of crime, ......
-
People v. Cammarata
...bail has been considered by other courts. In State v. Kesner, 72 Kan. 87, 82 P. 720, 721, the court quoted the syllabus of State v. Stewart, 65 Kan. 371, 69 P. 335 and then said: ‘Failure to appear for trial in accordance with the recognizance bond is, of course, not conclusive evidence of ......
-
State v. Morris
...consideration that flight to avoid prosecution was material on the question of the intent with which the act was committed (State v. Stewart, 65 Kan. 371, 69 P. 335; State v. Kesner, 72 Kan. 87, 82 P. 720; State v. Martin, 175 Kan. 373, 265 P.2d It was not incumbent upon the state to prove ......