State v. Theodore Lange
| Decision Date | 09 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | 27,070 |
| Citation | 249 P. 595,121 Kan. 703 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. THEODORE LANGE, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1926.
Appeal from Jefferson district court; MARTIN A. BENDER, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION--Indorsement of Witnesses--County Attorney. In a criminal prosecution it is not error for the trial court to permit the indorsement of the name of the county attorney on the information as a witness when his testimony pertained only to the custody of an exhibit.
2. RAPE--Competency of Evidence--Medicine Furnished to Produce Abortion. In a prosecution for statutory rape the prosecuting witness testified that defendant caused medicine to be furnished her to produce an abortion: Held, the prosecution is not required to show that the medicine was suitable or efficient for that purpose.
3. SAME--New Trial--Absent Witness--Necessity of Diligence. In the trial of a criminal case, when defendant knows of a material witness in his behalf, and that it is not possible for the witness to be present at the trial, and without asking for a continuance or for time to secure the witness or take his deposition, proceeds with the trial without advising the court of the situation, it is not error for the court to refuse a new trial because of defendant's inability to have the testimony of such witness.
H. N Casebier and H. T. Phinney, both of Oskaloosa, for the appellant.
C. B. Griffith, attorney-general, Roland Boynton, assistant attorney-general, Lloyde Morris, county attorney, and Edward Rooney, of Topeka, for the appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence upon a charge of statutory rape. The complaining witness, who was under the age of eighteen, testified to repeated acts of sexual intercourse with defendant; that as a result thereof she became pregnant, and that she advised defendant of that fact. She further testified that defendant talked of means of getting rid of the child, and named a doctor whom he said would get rid of it for her; but there is no evidence that either of them talked to the doctor about the matter. She further testified that defendant took her to the home of his married sister, in Leavenworth; told his sister the trouble she was in, and that the sister told her, in defendant's presence, that she could get her some medicine which would relieve her. That a few days later defendant again took her to the home of his sister, who gave her a bottle of medicine and told her to take it and it would relieve her. She further testified that she took the bottle of medicine home and later gave it to her father. Her father testified that he delivered the bottle of medicine to the county attorney, to be used in the trial of the case. The county attorney testified that he delivered the bottle with its contents to a local physician for examination; also, that he sent a portion of the contents to the drug laboratory of the state university. The local physician testified that the bottle contained a mixture of turpentine and some other oil, thought to be castor oil.
Appellant makes two complaints of this evidence. The name of the county attorney had not been indorsed on the information. This was noticed when he took the witness stand. The court then permitted the name to be indorsed, over defendant's objection. This ruling is complained of. The indorsing of additional names of witnesses on the information, even during a trial, rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and material prejudice in a ruling thereon must be clearly shown before it constitutes reversible error. Here the witness simply traced the custody of the bottle of medicine, a matter concerning which there was little or no controversy. The ruling was not erroneous.
It is next contended the contents of the bottle of medicine were not sufficiently analyzed, nor described, nor shown to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lopez, 40615
...it constitutes a reversible error (State v. Howland, 100 Kan. 181, 163 P. 1071; State v. Buckle, 116 Kan. 51, 225 P. 1035; State v. Lange, 121 Kan. 703, 249 P. 595; State v. Burgett, 174 Kan. 102, 105, 254 P.2d Only one of the witnesses, Kenneth D. Cain, testified. His testimony showed he h......
-
State v. Hendrix
...to the defendant must be clearly shown before it constitutes reversible error. State v. Burgett, 174 Kan. 102, 254 P.2d z54; State v. Lange, 121 Kan. 703, 249 P. 595; State v. Howland, 100 Kan. 181, 163 P. 1071; and State v. Buckle, 116 Kan. 51, 225 P. Considering all the surrounding facts ......
-
State v. Jameson
... ... guilty knowledge or an admission on his part of ... responsibility, and therefore an admission of the sexual ... intercourse, State v. Lange, 121 Kan. 703, ... 249 P. 595. This same reasoning would apply to the admission ... in evidence under the same conditions of conversations in ... ...
-
State v. Burgett, 38833
...trial court, and material prejudice in the ruling hereon must be clearly shown before it constitutes reversible error. See State v. Lange, 121 Kan. 703, 249 P. 595; State v. Howland, 100 Kan. 181, 163 P. 1071; and State v. Buckle, 116 Kan. 51, 225 P. It does not appear from this record how ......