State v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Murphy

111 P. 190, 83 Kan. 803, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 252

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedOctober 8, 1910

DocketNo. 16,835

StatusPublished

This text of 111 P. 190 (State v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 111 P. 190, 83 Kan. 803, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 252 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The evidence objected to did not tend to prove another crime. Only one place was in question, and that was fully identified. It will not be assumed that the court’s remark addressed to counsel in ruling on the admissibility of this evidence was prejudicial, and any possibility of injury to the appellant’s substantial rights was removed by the instructions to the jury. While generally an instruction like the seventeenth should not be given, prejudice will not be presumed, and none appears. The eighth and ninth instructions have been approved many times. The affidavit relating to the conduct of the [804]*804county attorney does not pretend to describe the odors emitted when the bottle was, broken and consequently does not show that the jury gained any information thereby damaging to the .appellant.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The evidence objected to did not tend to prove another crime. Only one place was in question, and that was fully identified. It will not be assumed that the court’s remark addressed to counsel in ruling on the admissibility of this evidence was prejudicial, and any possibility of injury to the appellant’s substantial rights was removed by the instructions to the jury. While generally an instruction like the seventeenth should not be given, prejudice will not be presumed, and none appears. The eighth and ninth instructions have been approved many times. The affidavit relating to the conduct of the [804]*804county attorney does not pretend to describe the odors emitted when the bottle was, broken and consequently does not show that the jury gained any information thereby damaging to the .appellant.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 P. 190, 83 Kan. 803, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murphy-kan-1910.