State v. Wellington

• Decision Date: 08 February 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 156,43 Kan. 121
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GUY WELLINGTON
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

23 P. 156

43 Kan. 121

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GUY WELLINGTON

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 8, 1890

Appeal from Morris District Court.

PROSECUTION for murder in the first degree. Trial at the adjourned April term, 1889, and conviction for murder in the second degree. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Miller & Ritchie, Maloy & Kelley, and Robinson &amp Lawrence, for appellant.

L. B Kellogg, attorney general, J. K. Owens, county attorney, and T. N. Sedgwick, for The State.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

The defendant, Guy Wellington, was prosecuted for murder in the first degree, and was convicted of and sentenced for murder in the second degree; and from such conviction and sentence he now appeals to this court. In all probability, from the evidence introduced on the trial, the verdict and sentence are correct; and yet for error occurring during the trial, the judgment of the court below must be reversed. During the trial, which was before the court and a jury, a letter from the defendant's mother, Anna B. Crandall, addressed to him under the assumed name of G. A. Mitchell, was introduced in evidence. It does not appear that the defendant ever received the letter, or saw it at any time before the trial. At the close of the evidence the defendant's counsel asked the court to instruct the jury among other things as follows:

"20. The court instructs the jury that the letter put in evidence by the state and written to the defendant by his mother, was only permitted to be received and read in evidence for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching any testimony given by the mother on the witness stand, and for no other purpose, and can only be considered by the jury for that purpose--it cannot be considered as defendant's act, or to criminate him."

This instruction the court refused to give, and the defendant excepted; and this refusal is now assigned for error. On the oral argument in this court the county attorney stated that this letter was introduced in evidence only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of Mrs. Crandall, and for no other purpose; but unfortunately for the interests of the prosecution, the record does not so show, and apparently shows that the letter was introduced over the objections of the defendant, upon the merits of the case, and for the purpose of tending to prove the defendant's guilt. If it was introduced only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of Mrs. Crandall, and if it had been so stated to the jury at the time of its introduction, so that the jury could not have been misled, then no error would have been committed by the court in refusing to give the foregoing instruction. With regard to this letter, counsel for the defendant say in their brief as follows:

"This letter was one which the jury might, in ignorance of the fact that it was competent only to contradict Mrs. Crandall, give an effect that was very unjust to the defendant; and the refusal of the court to give it [the instruction] we regard as an unfortunate error on the part of the court, which must have left the minds of the jury greatly prejudiced against the defendant."

If the letter was in fact used as evidence upon the merits, it was certainly very damaging to the defendant's case; and the record apparently shows that it was so used; and when the facts are disputed, we can be governed...