State v. Whitaker
Decision Date | 05 November 1886 |
Citation | 12 P. 106,35 Kan. 731 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. ALBERT WHITAKER |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Osborne District Court.
ON June 1, 1885, the following information -- omitting court, title and verification -- was filed in the district court of Osborne county:
Trial was begun October 12, 1885, before the court with a jury. On October 16th the jury returned a verdict against the defendant, Albert Whitaker, finding him guilty of murder in the first degree. On the same day the defendant filed his motion in arrest of judgment, and also his motion for a new trial. On October 17th both the motions were overruled. The defendant was sentenced in accordance with the verdict. He appeals.
Judgment reversed and remanded for new trial.
Hays & Pitts, and Walrond, Mitchell & Heren, for appellant.
S. B. Bradford, attorney general, for The State.
OPINION
The information filed in this case charges John R. Miller with the murder of Delbert J. Tunison, and also charges John Cranshaw and Albert Whitaker with having aided, abetted and assisted in the commission of the crime. John R. Miller was convicted of murder in the second degree, from which he appealed to this court. The opinion of this court was handed down, affirming that conviction. (The State v. Miller, ante, p. 328.)
Whitaker was convicted of murder in the first degree, at the October term of the district court of Osborne county for 1885, from which conviction he appeals.
It is claimed that the information upon which he was tried charges only an assault upon Delbert J. Tunison, and that if it charges anything more than an assault, it does not charge murder in the first degree. While the language of the information is subject to some criticism, we think it is sufficient within the authority of Smith v. The State, 1 Kan. 365, and The State v. Brown, 21 id. 38, as an information for murder in the first degree. It alleges, among other things, that on May 19th, 1885, in the county of Osborne and state of Kansas, John R. Miller, John Cranshaw and Albert Whitaker did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely, and of their deliberate and premeditated malice, make an assault upon Delbert J. Tunison; that John R. Miller did, purposely and of his deliberate and premeditated malice, shoot off and discharge against the said Tunison a double-barreled shot-gun, loaded with gunpowder and shot, then and there held in his hands, giving him a mortal wound, of which he died in a few hours thereafter; that John Cranshaw and Albert Whitaker then and there, by the means and in the manner aforesaid, aided, abetted and assisted John R. Miller to do the acts set forth, and that said John R. Miller, John Cranshaw and Albert Whitaker, in the manner and by the means stated, purposely and of their deliberate and premeditated malice, did kill and murder said Tunison. The information, taken together, alleges that the killing of Tunison was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
The evidence on the part of the state conduced to show that on Saturday, May 16, 1885, a difficulty occurred between Tunison and his wife; that her father, Jeremiah Miller, who lived a few miles away, learned of the trouble on Sunday evening, and went at once to the residence of the defendant -- Whitaker -- who was a near neighbor of the Tunisons, and remained until Monday forenoon. In the forenoon of that day, while Tunison was absent from home, Jeremiah Miller, accompanied by Albert Whitaker, went to Tunison's house, hitched up a pair of horses found there to a wagon and took Mrs. Tunison and her children to his home, carrying with him some goods and a cow, which property, together with the horses, Mrs. Tunison claimed as her own; that on Sunday preceding the killing of Tunison, as James Dwyer and wife were driving up to the house of Richard Dey, Whitaker came out from the stable up to the wagon, and handed Dey a chain, saying "Here's your chain; I will let you take it home;" that Dey then reached down in Whitaker's shirt-pocket and pulled out a pistol; that Dey asked Whitaker what use he had for it; that he answered, "He might have use for it before tomorrow morning;" that Dey asked him who he was about to get into trouble with, and that Whitaker said, "The man in the stone house," pointing to where Tunison lived; that he said he had been looking in his trunk for cartridges, but had not found any; that he was going up to where Dey was to see if he could get some; that on the same Sunday night Whitaker said to George Piatt "He wanted to see Dick Dey to get some cartridges of him; that he had laid out a couple of men in his time, and expected to have another laid out before sundown -- a person about six feet and a half tall;" that upon being asked "Who he was in trouble with," he said "His cousin -- Del. Tunison;" that Whitaker brought word to the Millers on Monday, the 18th, that Tunison was to come up that night and take the horses away; that John R. Miller and Charles Miller are sons of Jeremiah Miller and brothers to Mrs. Tunison; that John Cranshaw is a son-in-law of Jeremiah Miller, and Albert Whitaker, the defendant, a cousin of Tunison, and that all of these persons were at Miller's the night of the murder; that about eleven o'clock P. M. of said May 18th, John R. Miller and Charles Miller went down to the stable in anticipation of Tunison coming to retake the horses; that about twelve or one o'clock that night John R. Miller, without any excuse or justification, shot and killed Tunison at the stable; that on Tuesday morning, May 19th, Whitaker told John Loe "Del....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Llamas
...intent to transport others to or from crime scene sufficient to support conviction for aiding and abetting crime); State v. Whitaker, 35 Kan. 731, 735, 12 P. 106 (1886) (defendants who surrounded stable to prevent victim's escape guilty of aiding and abetting assault that resulted in death)......
-
Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Collins
...P. 222, 52 Am. Rep. 547]; Bigelow v. Henniger, 33 Kan. 362 ; Dowell v. Williams, 33 Kan. 319 ; Railroad v. Pierce, 33 Kan. 61 ; State v. Whitaker, 35 Kan. 731 ; Ransom v. Getty, 37 Kan. 75 ." ¶8 See, also, Case v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa 581; Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Gulf Railroad Co. v.......
-
State v. Booker
...prejudiced as in State v. Thompson, 119 Kan. 743, 241 P. 110, and in State v. Barbour, 142 Kan. 200, 46 P.2d 841. See also State v. Whitaker, 35 Kan. 731, 12 P. 106, and State v. Tawney, 81 Kan. 162, 105 P. The appellant argues that under the authority of State v. Hartsock, 140 Kan. 428, 37......
- State v. Hines