State v. Bowman
Citations
- 106 Kan. 430
- 188 P. 242
- 1920 Kan. LEXIS 534
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Prosecution for Grand Larceny — Statute of Limitations. On March 8, 1916, a complaint was filed on which a warrant was issued and delivered to the sheriff for the arrest of the defendant for felony. At that time the defendant was' serving sentence for felony, but was outside the penitentiary, under a parole granted in August, 1915. On March 6, 1916, the parole was revoked, and on March 17 he was returned to the penitentiary. He remained in the penitentiary until August 20, 1918, when he was paroled. He was finally discharged on September 19, 1918, and the warrant was served on September 28, 1918. The information subsequently filed charged that the offense was committed “on the-day of November, 1915.” Held:</p> <p>1. Larceny — Date of Offense Sufficiently Stated. The date of the offense was stated with sufficient certainty.</p> <p>2. Limitation op Actions — Larceny—Information. The information did not show on its face that the prosecution was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.</p> <p>3. Same — Judicial Notice — Transcript of Preliminary Proceedings — Presumptions. The court took judicial notice, from the transcript of the preliminary proceedings on file in the cause, of the time when the complaint was filed and the warrant was issued; the presumption was the sheriff performed his official duty in executing the warrant; and the record, aided by the presumption, disclosed commencement of prosecution within the statutory period.</p> <p>4. Same — Confinement in Penitentiary After Prosecution Was Begun. The statute specifying that time of absence of the defendant from the state, concealment to avoid service of process, and concealment of the fact of crime, shall not be included in computing the period of limitation, relates to the time within which action shall be commenced, and .does not forbid exclusion of the time the defendant was in the penitentiary after prosecution was commenced.</p> <p>5. Same. — Acts Sho
Judges: Burch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. HallSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-10-31· cited 49×
- State v. BisagnoSupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-06-12· cited 26×
- State v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Kansas· 1986-01-17· cited 24×
- Walter S. McCary v. State of KansasTenth Circuit· 1960-06-16· cited 18×
- State v. WonserSupreme Court of Kansas· 1975-06-14· cited 18×
- State v. WoolworthSupreme Court of Kansas· 1938-07-09· cited 16×
- State v. FreemanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1936-03-07· cited 13×
- State v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1988-04-14· cited 12×
- State v. HathawaySupreme Court of Kansas· 1936-04-11· cited 12×
- State v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1937-05-08· cited 11×
- State v. WymanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1967-04-08· cited 10×
- State v. MorrisIdaho Supreme Court· 1959-06-12· cited 10×
- State v. CashmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1953-04-11· cited 8×
- State v. SchonenbergerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1952-12-06· cited 7×
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Kansas· 1954-12-11· cited 7×
- In re P.R.G.Court of Appeals of Kansas· 2010-12-10· cited 7×
- State v. HarwiSupreme Court of Kansas· 1924-11-08· cited 6×
- State v. CollinsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1928-05-05· cited 5×
- McCullough v. HudspethSupreme Court of Kansas· 1949-10-08· cited 5×
- State v. NicholsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1988-10-28· cited 4×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.