State v. Ross

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Ross

80 P. 996, 71 Kan. 856

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 6, 1905

DocketNo. 14,081; No. 14,082

StatusPublished

This text of 80 P. 996 (State v. Ross) 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. Ross, 80 P. 996, 71 Kan. 856 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The principal question in this case has already-been disposed of by the decision in the case of The State v. Durein, 70 Kan. 1, 78 Pac. 152, 80 Pac. 987. The evidence was sufficient to establish the joint guilt of all the parties except Plamondon. The judgment rendered is not open to the criticisms appellants make upon it, and is to be interpreted by the separate sentences pronounced upon each one. Each guilty one is liable for all the costs in the case, but such costs can be collected but once.

The argument based upon the seventh instruction is faulty in that it assumes that the defendants were in fact found not guilty of making sales. In law they have now been in jeopardy, but their conduct was proper to be considered by the jury as bearing upon the question of the existence of a nuisance. Evidence as to Plamondon’s connection with the place was relevant to that subject.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to all the defendants except Plamondon. As to him it is reversed and the cause remanded.

In the case of The State v. Fred Simmons and Newman Hoard, submitted upon the same brief, 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 principal question in this case has already-been disposed of by the decision in the case of The State v. Durein, 70 Kan. 1, 78 Pac. 152, 80 Pac. 987. The evidence was sufficient to establish the joint guilt of all the parties except Plamondon. The judgment rendered is not open to the criticisms appellants make upon it, and is to be interpreted by the separate sentences pronounced upon each one. Each guilty one is liable for all the costs in the case, but such costs can be collected but once.

The argument based upon the seventh instruction is faulty in that it assumes that the defendants were in fact found not guilty of making sales. In law they have now been in jeopardy, but their conduct was proper to be considered by the jury as bearing upon the question of the existence of a nuisance. Evidence as to Plamondon’s connection with the place was relevant to that subject.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to all the defendants except Plamondon. As to him it is reversed and the cause remanded.

In the case of The State v. Fred Simmons and Newman Hoard, submitted upon the same brief, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 P. 996, 71 Kan. 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-kan-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack