State v. Sullivan

Decision Date04 April 1890
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS v. GRANT SULLIVAN
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Hodgeman District Court.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

S. W Vandivert, and G. P. Kline, for appellant.

L. B Kellogg, attorney general, for The State.

GREEN C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

GREEN, C.:

Grant Sullivan was convicted at the June term, 1889, of the district court of Hodgeman county, under § 84 of the crimes act, of embezzling a deed from Malcolm J. Cox, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of two years. He appeals to this court, and challenges the validity of the judgment of the court below upon a number of errors assigned in the brief of counsel for appellant; but the record, as brought here, presents but two questions which we can consider.

There was no motion made to quash the information filed against the defendant, and no exceptions taken to the instructions to the jury: hence we can consider but two questions in the record.

First: The assignment of error made by the appellant upon the court's refusal to grant a continuance. The record discloses the fact that upon this case being called for trial, an application was made by the defendant for a continuance, on the ground that the counsel who appeared for him at the preliminary examination was unable to be present at the trial; and that he had not had an opportunity to communicate to other counsel the facts material to his defense. The application was not made for a continuance of the case for the term, but simply to enable the defendant to properly prepare for his defense. There was no showing made as to when the counsel, who had appeared for him at the preliminary examination, would be able to be present in court; neither was there any showing that his presence was absolutely necessary. The affidavit filed by the defendant stated that his counsel was confined to his bed with a broken leg. From the very nature of the injury the defendant must have known that he could not appear, and such being the fact, it was his duty to get other counsel. The record shows that the defendant was represented by able counsel, and that the nature of the case was such that it would not require a great deal of time to communicate to them the nature of his defense. The matter of granting a continuance rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and the record fails to disclose any abuse of that discretion. There was no error in refusing the application for a continuance.

Second: The second ground of error is properly raised upon the motion made by the appellant in arrest of judgment. And in deciding this question we will dispose of the objection which was made by counsel to the introduction of any evidence, on the ground that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense. The language of the information is as follows:

"I the undersigned, prosecuting attorney of said county, in the name, by the authority and on behalf of the state of Kansas, give information that on the 30th day of July, 1888, in said county of Hodgeman and state of Kansas, one Grant Sullivan then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to defraud, did embezzle and convert to his own use a certain warranty deed, the property of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Creighton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1932
    ...there is in the case. State v. Dreschamps, 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7 So. 133; Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223, 23 N.E. 639; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan. 563, 23 Pac. 645. And the Supreme Court of Georgia has characterized the refusal of the trial court to continue a cause under such circumstances as ......
  • State v. Creighton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1932
    ... ... A ... continuance should be allowed when it is shown that counsel ... have not had sufficient time to prepare a defense, which he ... believes there is in the case. State v. Dreschamps, ... 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7 So. 133; Price v. People, 131 ... Ill. 223, 23 N.E. 639; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan ... 563, 23 P. 645. And the Supreme Court of Georgia has ... characterized the refusal of the trial court to continue a ... cause under such circumstances as violative of the ... constitutional right of the defendant, to be heard by ... counsel. Blackman v. State, 76 Ga. 288; ... ...
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1939
    ...74 Mo. 222; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v. Kauffman, 329 Mo. 813; State v. Dreschamps, 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7 So. 133; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan. 563, 23 P. 645; Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223, 23 N.E. State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 435; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Brooks, ......
  • State v. Jackson.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1939
    ...Mo. 222; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v. Kauffman, 329 Mo. 813; State v. Dreschamps, 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7 So. 133; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan. 563, 23 Pac. 645; Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223, 23 N.E. 639; State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 435; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Broo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT