State v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Duncan

78 P. 427, 70 Kan. 883, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 5, 1904

DocketNo. 13,838

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 78 P. 427 (State v. Duncan) 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. Duncan, 78 P. 427, 70 Kan. 883, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 82 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was charged in two counts: First, with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors; and, second, for maintaining a nuisance in connection therewith. He was convicted and sentenced upon the second count.

Upon the trial he denied that the liquor kept by him and sold was of an intoxicating character, and that he kept for sale or sold intoxicating liquors at the place charged. Evidence was introduced and considered upon these points.

In support of a motion for a new trial it was shown by the affidavits of several of the jurors that while the jury were deliberating upon their verdict one of them stated in the presence and hearing of the others: “I know it was beer that the defendant was selling there,” referring to the place where he was charged with maintaining nuisance, “because I drank some of the stuff myself.” Again: “I know that he sold intoxicating liquors as charged; that is the business he is in; he has followed it for years.” It was further shown that thereafter the jury, which had stood largely for acquittal, agreed to a conviction. A new trial was refused notwithstanding this showing. In this we must hold the court erred. (The State v. Burton, 65 Kan. 704, 70 Pac. 640; The State v. Rambo, 69 id. 777, 77 Pac. 563.)

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant was charged in two counts: First, with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors; and, second, for maintaining a nuisance in connection therewith. He was convicted and sentenced upon the second count.

Upon the trial he denied that the liquor kept by him and sold was of an intoxicating character, and that he kept for sale or sold intoxicating liquors at the place charged. Evidence was introduced and considered upon these points.

In support of a motion for a new trial it was shown by the affidavits of several of the jurors that while the jury were deliberating upon their verdict one of them stated in the presence and hearing of the others: “I know it was beer that the defendant was selling there,” referring to the place where he was charged with maintaining nuisance, “because I drank some of the stuff myself.” Again: “I know that he sold intoxicating liquors as charged; that is the business he is in; he has followed it for years.” It was further shown that thereafter the jury, which had stood largely for acquittal, agreed to a conviction. A new trial was refused notwithstanding this showing. In this we must hold the court erred. (The State v. Burton, 65 Kan. 704, 70 Pac. 640; The State v. Rambo, 69 id. 777, 77 Pac. 563.)

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 P. 427, 70 Kan. 883, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duncan-kan-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack