State v. Watson
| Decision Date | 08 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | 33273. |
| Citation | 145 Kan. 792,67 P.2d 515 |
| Parties | STATE v. WATSON. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Prosecution for crime is commenced on date warrant is issued and placed in hands of officer for service.
Limitation against prosecution for embezzlement by justice of peace of fine collected by justice commenced running on date 30 days after receipt of fine by justice, under statute providing that fines collected by justice should be paid to county treasurer within 30 days from receipt thereof (Gen.St.1935 62-503, 63-502, 63-503, 72-2403).
"Embezzlement" is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of property or money of another intrusted to him, and is committed when person intrusted with money or property of another fails to have it forthcoming on lawful demand of person to whom it belongs.
Concealment by justice of peace of embezzlement of fine so as to toll limitations against prosecution of offense held not established by evidence that justice failed to file certificate of conviction with county clerk or to pay over money to county treasurer or county superintendent, since statute providing time of concealment is not to be included in computing limitations for prosecution of an offense requires "concealment" which is result of positive acts done by accused and calculated to prevent discovery that offense has been committed, not mere silence, inaction, or nondisclosure (Gen.St. 1935, 62-503, 63-502, 63-503 72-2403).
"Concealment" is any statement or conduct which prevents another from acquiring knowledge of a fact. "Nondisclosure" is a failure to reveal facts, and may exist when there is no "concealment." To constitute "concealment" it must appear that the statements or acts of accused were calculated and designed to prevent discovery of the crime with which he is charged.
1. The concealment of the fact of a crime which suspends the operation of the statute of limitations must be the result of positive acts done by the accused and calculated to prevent the discovery that the offense has been committed. Mere silence, inaction, or nondisclosure is not concealment.
2. Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of property or money of another intrusted to him.
Appeal from District Court, Stanton County; Frank O. Rindom, Judge.
W. L Watson was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.
Reversed with directions.
H. W. Stubbs, of Ulysses, and Samuel Yaggy, of Syracuse, for appellant.
Clarence V. Beck, Atty. Gen., H. B. Sanders, Co. Atty., of Johnson, and Oscar F. Perkins, of Elkhart, for the State.
The defendant, W. L. Watson, appeals from a conviction on a charge of embezzlement.
The first count of the information charged that on or about the 14th day of September, 1930, the defendant embezzled $500 and "that ever since the commission of the offense herein charged the said W. L. Watson has continuously concealed the fact of said crime."
The record shows that from January, 1929, to January, 1935, defendant was a duly elected, qualified, and acting justice of the peace of Stanton township in Stanton county, Kansas. The dockets of defendant were introduced in evidence. In September, 1930, the case of the State of Kansas v. Henry Dufield was tried before the defendant as justice of the peace. The docket entry in that case seems full and complete. It recites the complaint filed against Dufield, charging possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor and use of a Hudson car for the purpose of transportation of such liquor. It sets forth the issuance and service of the warrant and seizure of the car, the plea of guilty, assessment of the fine, sale of the car, receipt of the amount of the fine, and the proceeds of the sale of the car. The docket further shows the payment of the fees to the sheriff and county attorney.
At the trial the following admission was made by defendant:
The original complaint was filed against the defendant on July 25, 1935, and the warrant was served on the same date. The information was filed on or about September 25, 1935.
Under the law of this state the prosecution for crime is commenced on the date the warrant is issued and placed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, on Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore
... ... (c) A criminal action may be commenced by filing a complaint ... before a magistrate, on which a warrant is issued ... Hartnett v. State, 42 Ohio St. 576; People v ... Clark, 33 Mich. 120; State v. Port, 3 F. 121; ... State v. Waterman, 88 P. 1074; State v ... Watson, 67 P.2d 515, 145 Kan. 792; Conley v. United ... States, 59 F.2d 933. (d) The term "commence and ... prosecute" means the filing of a complaint in the ... justice court, and proceeding thereon. Sec. 3467, R. S. 1929; ... State v. Layton. 58 S.W.2d 457; State v ... Tull, 62 S.W.2d 390; ... ...
-
State v. Palmer
...done by the accused and calculated to prevent discovery; mere silence, inaction, or nondisclosure is not concealment. [State v. Watson, 145 Kan. 792, 67 P.2d 515 (1937).] Thus, for example, a loan officer's failure to inform an investor in the lending business of a principal payment on a mo......
-
Baker v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co.
... ... cannot put your brakes on fast and it happened so fast just ... like that.' ... Appellees' ... third witness was a state highway patrolman who arrived on ... the scene about thirty minutes after the accident. He stated ... that he was able to fix the point of the ... ...
-
State v. Belt, No. 95,575.
...mere silence, inaction, or nondisclosure is not concealment.'" State v. Palmer, 248 Kan. 681, 683, 810 P.2d 734 (1991); State v. Watson, 145 Kan. 792, 67 P.2d 515 (1937). We do not have the necessary "positive acts" by Belt in these cases. Indeed, he consented to a law enforcement request f......