State v. Ellis

Court of Appeals of Kansas

State v. Ellis

957 P.2d 520, 25 Kan. App. 2d 61, 1998 Kan. App. LEXIS 44

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedApril 17, 1998

DocketNo. 77,525

StatusPublished

This text of 957 P.2d 520 (State v. Ellis) 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. Ellis, 957 P.2d 520, 25 Kan. App. 2d 61, 1998 Kan. App. LEXIS 44 (kanctapp 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Knudson, J.:

Paula Ellis appeals her jury trial conviction of criminal solicitation to commit perjury. See K.S.A. 21-3303; K.S.A. 21-3805. On appeal, Ellis contends that the evidence was insufficient because the quantum of proof required in a perjury case was not presented to the jury.

The facts of this case will not be repeated in detail. Ellis does not dispute the existence of evidence ordinarily deemed sufficient to support a criminal conviction; her contention is that a different and unique quantum of evidence rule applies to perjury prosecutions that was not met in this proceeding. Specifically, she relies upon the holding in State v. Gobin, 134 Kan. 532, Syl. ¶ 4, 7 P.2d 57 (1932), that “[t]wo witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances are necessary to establish the fact of perjury, and therefore the uncorroborated testimony of one witness as to the falsity of a sworn statement is not enough to support a conviction for perjury.”

The holding in Gobin is still good law in this state. See State v. Barker, 18 Kan. App. 2d 292, 851 P.2d 394 (1993). Unfortunately for Ellis, however, this is not a perjury case, and the proposition [62]*62that “oath against oath is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence” is not applicable. 18 Kan. App. 2d at 294.

Ellis was charged and convicted of soliciting another person to commit perjury in a juvenile case pending against a family friend. This is an inchoate or anticipatory crime that has not the remotest resemblance to a perjury prosecution against Ellis that would invoke the holding in Qobin. Her claim of error is without legal merit.

Affirmed.

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

Knudson, J.:

Paula Ellis appeals her jury trial conviction of criminal solicitation to commit perjury. See K.S.A. 21-3303; K.S.A. 21-3805. On appeal, Ellis contends that the evidence was insufficient because the quantum of proof required in a perjury case was not presented to the jury.

The facts of this case will not be repeated in detail. Ellis does not dispute the existence of evidence ordinarily deemed sufficient to support a criminal conviction; her contention is that a different and unique quantum of evidence rule applies to perjury prosecutions that was not met in this proceeding. Specifically, she relies upon the holding in State v. Gobin, 134 Kan. 532, Syl. ¶ 4, 7 P.2d 57 (1932), that “[t]wo witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances are necessary to establish the fact of perjury, and therefore the uncorroborated testimony of one witness as to the falsity of a sworn statement is not enough to support a conviction for perjury.”

The holding in Gobin is still good law in this state. See State v. Barker, 18 Kan. App. 2d 292, 851 P.2d 394 (1993). Unfortunately for Ellis, however, this is not a perjury case, and the proposition [62]*62that “oath against oath is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence” is not applicable. 18 Kan. App. 2d at 294.

Ellis was charged and convicted of soliciting another person to commit perjury in a juvenile case pending against a family friend. This is an inchoate or anticipatory crime that has not the remotest resemblance to a perjury prosecution against Ellis that would invoke the holding in Qobin. Her claim of error is without legal merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

957 P.2d 520, 25 Kan. App. 2d 61, 1998 Kan. App. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ellis-kanctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack