State v. Hutchinson

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Hutchinson

267 P. 963, 126 Kan. 372, 1928 Kan. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 9, 1928

DocketNo. 28,272

StatusPublished

This text of 267 P. 963 (State v. Hutchinson) 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. Hutchinson, 267 P. 963, 126 Kan. 372, 1928 Kan. LEXIS 90 (kan 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

[373]*373The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

Appellant was convicted of the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.

The evidence for the state was to- this effect: By authority of a search warrant, the sheriff, undersheriff and the county attorney searched the defendant’s residence in Robinson and found therein a basket containing four one-gallon cans of alcohol.

Defendant contends that under the rule announced in State v. Gendusa, 122 Kan. 520, 253 Pac. 598, a verdict and judgment based solely on such testimony cannot stand. But in that case the instructions were faulty and prejudicial and apparently induced the verdict. Here the instructions are not complained of, and it would never do to declare as a matter of law that the facts set out above did not make a prima fame case of guilt. (State v. Giroux, 75 Kan. 695, 698, 90 Pac. 249; State v. Doebele, 109 Kan. 617, 201 Pac. 64; State v. Hards, 125 Kan. 364, 263 Pac. 1055; 33 C. J. 744, 747.)

We note the testimony given in behalf of defendant which tended to show that some unknown person was seen to slip furtively into defendant’s house carrying a basket and to leave a few moments later without the basket. But apparently the jury either did not believe that story ,or attached no exculpatory significance to it so far as concerned the accused. (State v. Nossaman, 118 Kan. 157, 233 Pac. 1038.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

[373]*373The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

Appellant was convicted of the offense of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.

The evidence for the state was to- this effect: By authority of a search warrant, the sheriff, undersheriff and the county attorney searched the defendant’s residence in Robinson and found therein a basket containing four one-gallon cans of alcohol.

Defendant contends that under the rule announced in State v. Gendusa, 122 Kan. 520, 253 Pac. 598, a verdict and judgment based solely on such testimony cannot stand. But in that case the instructions were faulty and prejudicial and apparently induced the verdict. Here the instructions are not complained of, and it would never do to declare as a matter of law that the facts set out above did not make a prima fame case of guilt. (State v. Giroux, 75 Kan. 695, 698, 90 Pac. 249; State v. Doebele, 109 Kan. 617, 201 Pac. 64; State v. Hards, 125 Kan. 364, 263 Pac. 1055; 33 C. J. 744, 747.)

We note the testimony given in behalf of defendant which tended to show that some unknown person was seen to slip furtively into defendant’s house carrying a basket and to leave a few moments later without the basket. But apparently the jury either did not believe that story ,or attached no exculpatory significance to it so far as concerned the accused. (State v. Nossaman, 118 Kan. 157, 233 Pac. 1038.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 P. 963, 126 Kan. 372, 1928 Kan. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hutchinson-kan-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack