State v. Brooks

Court of Appeals of Kansas

State v. Brooks

56 P. 1127, 8 Kan. App. 344, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 217

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedApril 26, 1899

DocketNo. 645

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 56 P. 1127 (State v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brooks, 56 P. 1127, 8 Kan. App. 344, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 217 (kanctapp 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

The only reason urged by the defendant why the judgment of the district court should be reversed is that the state failed to prove that the offense was committed in Shawnee county. A review of the evidence shows that of the witnesses who testified on the trial each one located the place where the offense was committed as 514 or 516 Kansas avenue, or both of, said numbers, except George Bass, who located it at 514, without even giving the name of the street, and R. M. Curtis at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, up-stairs, known as the Jockheck building; but by agreement the affidavit of George Hungate was admitted, and in his evidence the location was fixed at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, in the city of Topeka, Kansas. This was sufficient to fix the venue. Courts will take judicial notice of such general facts as everybody in their jurisdiction is supposed to know. In State v. Reader, 60 Iowa, 527, 15 N. W. 423, it was said : “As the court will take judicial notice in what [345]*345county a given incorporated town is situated, when it is proven that a crime was committed in an incorporated town, the venue is sufficiently shown.” In Sullivan v. People, 122 Ill. 385, 13 N. E. 248, it was held : “The court will take judicial notice that Chicago is in Cook county, and proof that a crime is committed in Chicago is proof that it was committed in Cook county.”

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

The only reason urged by the defendant why the judgment of the district court should be reversed is that the state failed to prove that the offense was committed in Shawnee county. A review of the evidence shows that of the witnesses who testified on the trial each one located the place where the offense was committed as 514 or 516 Kansas avenue, or both of, said numbers, except George Bass, who located it at 514, without even giving the name of the street, and R. M. Curtis at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, up-stairs, known as the Jockheck building; but by agreement the affidavit of George Hungate was admitted, and in his evidence the location was fixed at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, in the city of Topeka, Kansas. This was sufficient to fix the venue. Courts will take judicial notice of such general facts as everybody in their jurisdiction is supposed to know. In State v. Reader, 60 Iowa, 527, 15 N. W. 423, it was said : “As the court will take judicial notice in what [345]*345county a given incorporated town is situated, when it is proven that a crime was committed in an incorporated town, the venue is sufficiently shown.” In Sullivan v. People, 122 Ill. 385, 13 N. E. 248, it was held : “The court will take judicial notice that Chicago is in Cook county, and proof that a crime is committed in Chicago is proof that it was committed in Cook county.”

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 P. 1127, 8 Kan. App. 344, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brooks-kanctapp-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack