State v. Adams
Citations
- 85 Kan. 435
- 116 P. 608
- 1911 Kan. LEXIS 89
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Admissions — Voluntary Statements Admissible. • Statements made by one charged with murder to a county attorney and county commissioner, giving in detail the facts of the crime, are properly received in evidence when there is no showing that such statements were procured by duress, promise of reward, or other improper means.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Shoe-tracks Admissible. The description and measurement of tracks at the scene of the crime which correspond with the shoes worn by the defendant and introduced in evidence are competent.</p> <p>3. Bloodhounds.— When Conduct of Admissible as Evidence. Before evidence of the conduct of bloodhounds alleged to have been put upon the trail of the defendant can properly be received it should appear that the dogs in question were able, at the time and under the circumstances, to follow the scent or track of a person. When such foundation has been laid and the evidence showing the conduct of the dogs has been received, a charge in substance that before the jury can consider such conduct they must find that the dogs in question were accurate, certain and reliable in following the trail of human footsteps, and if they find from the evidence touching the matter that they were and are reliable and accurate in this regard then the evidence of their work and its result may be considered, together with all the other evidence in the case, as a circumstance determining the guilt of the defendant, is not prejudicially erroneous as to such defendant.</p> <p>4. - Weight of Such Evidence for Jury. While the competency of such evidence must be determined by the court before its admission and not left to the jury, still after its admission and after cross-examination or rebuttal it may become so weakened that the jury should disregard it.</p> <p>5. - When Conduct of Bloodhounds Should Not he Considered. If a proper foundation for such evidence be subsequently so weakened or destroyed as to render the jury unabl
Judges: Benson, Porter, West
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. PfanschmidtIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-02-21· cited 80×
- State v. NorrisSupreme Court of Kansas· 1989-01-25· cited 48×
- Terrell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1968-03-12· cited 44×
- State v. GrbaSupreme Court of Iowa· 1923-06-22· cited 32×
- State v. StormMontana Supreme Court· 1952-02-13· cited 24×
- State v. SweetSupreme Court of Kansas· 1917-11-10· cited 22×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas· 1999-01-22· cited 19×
- State v. HortonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2014-08-08· cited 19×
- Aiken v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1913-10-31· cited 18×
- State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1958-03-08· cited 16×
- Mason v. City of Kansas CitySupreme Court of Kansas· 1918-06-08· cited 16×
- State v. MooneySupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-11-14· cited 15×
- State v. MarekSupreme Court of Kansas· 1930-02-08· cited 15×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Kansas· 1924-03-06· cited 14×
- State v. FieldsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1957-12-07· cited 13×
- Fite v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 1915-02-18· cited 13×
- Crosby v. MoriartySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1921-02-04· cited 12×
- State v. FixleySupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-03-07· cited 10×
- State v. WainwrightCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1993-06-25· cited 9×
- State v. ChristonCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1979-06-01· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.