State v. Craig

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Craig

201 P. 1094, 109 Kan. 699, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 350

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 12, 1921

DocketNo. 23,027

StatusPublished

This text of 201 P. 1094 (State v. Craig) 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. Craig, 201 P. 1094, 109 Kan. 699, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 350 (kan 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals.

The sole ground of the appeal is that the defendant gave a clear account of his handling of the property stolen, was corroborated by a credible witness, and consequently the jury must have dealt with the testimony in an arbitrary manner. This court has the judgment of the district court to the contrary, in the order overruling the motion for a new trial. It may be the defendant and his witness, whom the court and the jury saw while on the witness stand, were discredited by their manner of testifying, or other circumstances. Besides that, the state’s chief witness was corroborated in respect to important details. Under these circumstances this court is not authorized to interfere.

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

Burch, J.:

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals.

The sole ground of the appeal is that the defendant gave a clear account of his handling of the property stolen, was corroborated by a credible witness, and consequently the jury must have dealt with the testimony in an arbitrary manner. This court has the judgment of the district court to the contrary, in the order overruling the motion for a new trial. It may be the defendant and his witness, whom the court and the jury saw while on the witness stand, were discredited by their manner of testifying, or other circumstances. Besides that, the state’s chief witness was corroborated in respect to important details. Under these circumstances this court is not authorized to interfere.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 P. 1094, 109 Kan. 699, 1921 Kan. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-craig-kan-1921.