State v. Turner

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Turner

278 P. 58, 128 Kan. 376, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 332

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 8, 1929

DocketNo. 28,737

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 P. 58 (State v. Turner) 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. Turner, 278 P. 58, 128 Kan. 376, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 332 (kan 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hopkins, J.:

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law and appeals.

The facts were substantially these: Some federal prohibition officers, with a deputy sheriff, visited defendant’s farmhouse about eight miles from Independence, fortified with a search warrant. They found defendant’s wife in the kitchen and defendant in the next room. In one corner of the kitchen they found two gallon jugs containing intoxicating liquor. The wife began to cry; said she had begged them not to bring liquor into the house. The defendant, who was within hearing distance, claimed someone else must have left the liquor near his mail box; that he innocently brought it to his house. The jury saw and heard the witnesses and resolved the question of fact against the defendant. There was ample evidence [377]*377to sustain the verdict, and no reason is apparent why the jury’s decision is not conclusive.

A contention that the court erred in the instructions to the jury is without substantial merit and cannot be sustained.

A contention that the court erred in admitting testimony of a former occasion when liquor was found in defendant’s possession must fail on authority of State v. Dunkerton (ante, p. 374, 277 Pac. 1019) and authorities cited.

We find no error in the record and are constrained to say that the appeal is without substantial merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hopkins, J.:

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law and appeals.

The facts were substantially these: Some federal prohibition officers, with a deputy sheriff, visited defendant’s farmhouse about eight miles from Independence, fortified with a search warrant. They found defendant’s wife in the kitchen and defendant in the next room. In one corner of the kitchen they found two gallon jugs containing intoxicating liquor. The wife began to cry; said she had begged them not to bring liquor into the house. The defendant, who was within hearing distance, claimed someone else must have left the liquor near his mail box; that he innocently brought it to his house. The jury saw and heard the witnesses and resolved the question of fact against the defendant. There was ample evidence [377]*377to sustain the verdict, and no reason is apparent why the jury’s decision is not conclusive.

A contention that the court erred in the instructions to the jury is without substantial merit and cannot be sustained.

A contention that the court erred in admitting testimony of a former occasion when liquor was found in defendant’s possession must fail on authority of State v. Dunkerton (ante, p. 374, 277 Pac. 1019) and authorities cited.

We find no error in the record and are constrained to say that the appeal is without substantial merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 P. 58, 128 Kan. 376, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-turner-kan-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack