State v. Hampton

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Hampton

85 P. 1135, 74 Kan. 867, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 167

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 6, 1906

DocketNo. 14,845

StatusPublished

This text of 85 P. 1135 (State v. Hampton) 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. Hampton, 85 P. 1135, 74 Kan. 867, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 167 (kan 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appellant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. He appeals to this court, and the only error of which he complains is the giving of an instruction. This instruction pertains to the duty of the jurors in weighing evidence in determining the. credibility of any particular witness. Some things are said in this instruction which, if taken independently of the accompanying language, would [868]*868be objectionable, but which, when read with the other parts of the same instruction, and in connection with the general instruction upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence, and the province and duty of the jury in respect thereto, are harmless. In determining the meaning and effect of any particular instruction, it should be considered in its entirety, and read in connection with all other related instructions. When thus interpreted the instruction objected to was not prejudicial.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The appellant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. He appeals to this court, and the only error of which he complains is the giving of an instruction. This instruction pertains to the duty of the jurors in weighing evidence in determining the. credibility of any particular witness. Some things are said in this instruction which, if taken independently of the accompanying language, would [868]*868be objectionable, but which, when read with the other parts of the same instruction, and in connection with the general instruction upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence, and the province and duty of the jury in respect thereto, are harmless. In determining the meaning and effect of any particular instruction, it should be considered in its entirety, and read in connection with all other related instructions. When thus interpreted the instruction objected to was not prejudicial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 P. 1135, 74 Kan. 867, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hampton-kan-1906.