State v. Ewing

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Ewing

173 P. 927, 103 Kan. 399, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 276

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 6, 1918

DocketNo. 21,629

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 P. 927 (State v. Ewing) 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. Ewing, 173 P. 927, 103 Kan. 399, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 276 (kan 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court 'was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The defendant was convicted of statutory rape, and appeals.

The evidence, which will not be recited, was sufficient to establish all the necessary elements of the crime. Testimony of other acts was properly allowed to stand, as showing the relations existing between the parties and their disposition toward each other. Other testimony complained of was properly admitted.

There was both direct and circumstantial evidence tending to establish guilt. While the instruction relating to conviction on circumstantial evidence alone might properly have been omitted, it did not prejudice the defendant to give it. When all the instructions are read together, as they must be, none of them is open to the charge of indefiniteness or incompleteness. Failure of the complaining witness to make prompt outcry or complaint merely tends to show consent, or lack of the use of outraging force, and is not of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a special instruction in a case of statutory rape. An instruction on the subject of attempt was waived by failure to request it, was not pertinent to the evidence, and became immaterial when the jury found the defendant guilty of the completed offense on satisfying evidence.

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 statutory rape, and appeals.

The evidence, which will not be recited, was sufficient to establish all the necessary elements of the crime. Testimony of other acts was properly allowed to stand, as showing the relations existing between the parties and their disposition toward each other. Other testimony complained of was properly admitted.

There was both direct and circumstantial evidence tending to establish guilt. While the instruction relating to conviction on circumstantial evidence alone might properly have been omitted, it did not prejudice the defendant to give it. When all the instructions are read together, as they must be, none of them is open to the charge of indefiniteness or incompleteness. Failure of the complaining witness to make prompt outcry or complaint merely tends to show consent, or lack of the use of outraging force, and is not of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a special instruction in a case of statutory rape. An instruction on the subject of attempt was waived by failure to request it, was not pertinent to the evidence, and became immaterial when the jury found the defendant guilty of the completed offense on satisfying evidence.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 P. 927, 103 Kan. 399, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ewing-kan-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack