State v. Tawney
| Decision Date | 10 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 17,051 |
| Citation | 83 Kan. 603,112 P. 161 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BERT TAWNEY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1910.
Appeal from Franklin district court.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CHANGE OF VENUE--Local Prejudice. The evidence warranted a finding that there existed no such prejudice in the community as would prevent the defendant from having a fair trial.
2. CHANGE OF VENUE--Disqualification of the Judge. Unfavorable comment by the court in denying a new trial and other adverse rulings and errors of judgment in former trials held insufficient to reverse a decision denying a change of venue.
3. JURY AND JURORS--Challenge to the Array--Misconduct of Officer Who Summoned the Jury. Mere expression of an opinion by the sheriff as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a criminal action held not to warrant the quashing of a panel summoned by him.
4. CRIMINAL LAW--Rulings upon the Evidence. On appeal by one convicted of larceny the appellant claimed the trial court erred in admitting and excluding testimony. Held:
(a) It was within the discretion of the court to permit questions to be asked a witness tending to refresh his recollection.
(b) Testimony that certain relatives of the prosecuting witness had been convicted of crime and sentenced to the penitentiary was properly excluded.
(c) There being testimony that a witness had been declared insane, the defendant was not prejudiced by a refusal to permit a transcript of the lunacy proceedings to be introduced.
(d) Certain testimony was properly excluded because it was a self-serving declaration.
(e) Objections to questions calling for hearsay testimony were properly sustained.
W. J Costigan, for the appellant.
Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, and W. B. Pleasant, county attorney, for the appellee.
OPINION
For a statement of the facts in this case see The State v. Tawney, 78 Kan. 855, 99 P. 268, and 81 Kan. 162. We find no error in the ruling of the court denying a change of venue. As to the first ground, there was sufficient rebutting evidence in the form of affidavits to warrant a finding that there existed no such prejudice in the community as would prevent the appellant from having a fair trial. The court doubtless took into consideration the fact that Franklin is a large, populous county, and that little difficulty would be experienced in finding unprejudiced jurors in portions of the county remote from where the appellant lived and where the crime charged was committed.
To show prejudice on the part of the judge the appellant filed his affidavit and that of his attorney, relying largely upon unfavorable comments of the court in denying a motion for a new trial and other adverse rulings and errors of judgment in former trials. These have been held insufficient as grounds for reversing a decision refusing a change of venue. (The State v. Bohan, 19 Kan. 28.) Weight and consideration should always be given to the decision of the trial judge. (The State v. Tawney, 81 Kan. 162, 105 P. 218.) The trial court must exercise some discretion in passing upon applications for a change of venue. (The State v. Knadler, 40 Kan. 359, 19 P. 923.) We are unable to say that the court abused its discretion in this respect.
The challenge to the array was rightly overruled. The mere expression of an opinion by the sheriff as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a criminal action is not sufficient ground for quashing a panel summoned by him, in the absence of any testimony showing an attempt to influence or prejudice the jurors.
Complaint is made of errors in the admission and exclusion of testimony. It was clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miles
... ... court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal ... (State v. Breyer, 40 Idaho 324, 232 P. 560; ... State v. Hoagland, 39 Idaho 405; 228 P. 314; ... State v. Rooke, 10 Idaho 388, 79 P. 82; State v ... Casey, 34 Nev. 154, 117 P. 5; State v. Tawney, 83 Kan ... 603, 112 P. 161.) ... A ... motion for change of venue is addressed to the sound ... discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will ... not be disturbed unless it affirmatively appears that such ... discretion has been abused. (State v. Hoagland, supra; ... ...
-
State v. Miller
...Daugherty, 63 Kan. 473, 65 P. 695; State v. Parmenter, 70 Kan. 513, 79 P. 123; State v. Bassnett, 80 Kan. 392, 102 P. 461; State v. Tawney, 83 Kan. 603, 112 P. 161; v. Mullins, 95 Kan. 280, 288, 147 P. 828; State v. Kagi, 105 Kan. 536, 185 P. 62; State v. Brown, 114 Kan. 452, 219 P. 279; St......
-
State v. Taylor
... ... in refusing to grant a change of venue does not appear ... State v. Furbeck, 29 Kan. 532; State v ... Knadler, 40 Kan. 359, 19 P. 923; State v ... Parmenter, 70 Kan. 513, 79 P. 123; State v ... Bassnett, 80 Kan. 392, 102 P. 461; State v ... Tawney, 83 Kan. 603, 604, 112 P. 161; State v ... Welch, 121 Kan. 369, 372, 247 P. 1053; State v ... Harris, 126 Kan. 710, 271 P. 316 ... Defendant ... cites the recent case of State v. Taylor, 137 Kan ... 280, 20 P.2d 628. But in that case this court did not hold ... that the ... ...
-
State v. Elftman
...State v. Bohan, 19 Kan. 28; The State v. Parmenter, 70 Kan. 513, 79 P. 123; The State v. Tawney, 81 Kan. 162, 105 P. 218; The State v. Tawney, 83 Kan. 603, 112 P. 161; The State v. Sexton, 91 Kan. 171, 136 P. 901. Three jurors were challenged because on voir dire they indicated they had for......