State v. Brower

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Brower

88 P. 884, 75 Kan. 823, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 141

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 9, 1907

DocketNo. 14,909

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 88 P. 884 (State v. Brower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Brower, 88 P. 884, 75 Kan. 823, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 141 (kan 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted of the offense of disturbing the peace and quiet of the prosecuting witness, and appeals to this court.

The sufficiency of the complaint was put in issue by a motion to quash. It is conceded that the offense is charged in the language of the statute defining the offense, but it is contended that this is not sufficient— that the particular facts and illegal acts should be charged, that the defendant may be the better enabled to prepare his defense. In some jurisdictions this has been held requisite, but in this state, especially since the decision in 1890 of The State v. Craddock. 44 Kan. 489, 24 Pac. 949, the practice of charging misdemeanors in the language of the statute which defines the offense has been recognized, and no considerable complaint thereof has been made. There may be cases in which the defendant might really be in doubt what act or acts of his were claimed to be in violation of law. Certainly this is not such a case, and herein, at least, we see no reason to depart from the practice approved in the Craddock case.

The only other question which seems to merit attention is the alleged misconduct of the county attorney in his argument. We cannot consider this question, as it was not presented on the motion for a new trial as the statute requires, there being no affidavit as to the facts. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 4754, 4757; Parrish v. Parrish, 67 Kan. 823, 72 Pac. 844.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The defendant was arrested, tried, and convicted of the offense of disturbing the peace and quiet of the prosecuting witness, and appeals to this court.

The sufficiency of the complaint was put in issue by a motion to quash. It is conceded that the offense is charged in the language of the statute defining the offense, but it is contended that this is not sufficient— that the particular facts and illegal acts should be charged, that the defendant may be the better enabled to prepare his defense. In some jurisdictions this has been held requisite, but in this state, especially since the decision in 1890 of The State v. Craddock. 44 Kan. 489, 24 Pac. 949, the practice of charging misdemeanors in the language of the statute which defines the offense has been recognized, and no considerable complaint thereof has been made. There may be cases in which the defendant might really be in doubt what act or acts of his were claimed to be in violation of law. Certainly this is not such a case, and herein, at least, we see no reason to depart from the practice approved in the Craddock case.

The only other question which seems to merit attention is the alleged misconduct of the county attorney in his argument. We cannot consider this question, as it was not presented on the motion for a new trial as the statute requires, there being no affidavit as to the facts. (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 4754, 4757; Parrish v. Parrish, 67 Kan. 823, 72 Pac. 844.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 P. 884, 75 Kan. 823, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brower-kan-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack