State v. Miller

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Miller

114 P. 855, 84 Kan. 667, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 8, 1911

DocketNo. 17,185

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 P. 855 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 114 P. 855, 84 Kan. 667, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 392 (kan 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The facts in this case are stated in the former opinion. (The State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410.) A rehearing was allowed, and it is now held that the court erred in not instructing the jury that if the appellant acted innocently, believing that he was aiding another in taking charge of and removing from the depot platform the other’s own property, he was not guilty of larceny. Although the particular instruction requested was faulty, as pointed out in'the former opinion, it was, as said in a recent case, “sufficient at least to challenge the court’s attention to the only defense upon which the defendant relied” (The State v Turner, [668]*66883 Kan. 183) and in support of which there was some substantial evidence offered. As no instruction was given which in any manner stated the law in reference to the appellant’s sole defense, the error must be regarded as prejudicial.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam:

The facts in this case are stated in the former opinion. (The State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410.) A rehearing was allowed, and it is now held that the court erred in not instructing the jury that if the appellant acted innocently, believing that he was aiding another in taking charge of and removing from the depot platform the other’s own property, he was not guilty of larceny. Although the particular instruction requested was faulty, as pointed out in'the former opinion, it was, as said in a recent case, “sufficient at least to challenge the court’s attention to the only defense upon which the defendant relied” (The State v Turner, [668]*66883 Kan. 183) and in support of which there was some substantial evidence offered. As no instruction was given which in any manner stated the law in reference to the appellant’s sole defense, the error must be regarded as prejudicial.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 P. 855, 84 Kan. 667, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-kan-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack