State v. Davis
Citations
- 108 Kan. 161
- 194 P. 650
- 1921 Kan. LEXIS 1
Syllabus
<p>syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Criminal Law — Burglary — Insufficient Evidence to Convict. In a prosecution the defendant and three others were jointly charged with breaking into a garage and stealing therefrom automobile casings, and the defendant who was awarded a separate trial was convicted of burglary and larceny: Held, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the charge of burglary or to show that he had any connection with the transaction until after the burglary had been completed.</p> <p>2. Same — Larceny—Sitfficienb Evidence to Convict. As to the larceny there is testimony sufficient to support the judgment that the defendant aided and abetted in the commission of that offense.</p> <p>3. Same — Defendants Jointly Charged — Separate Trial — Competent Evidence. As the defendant and others were jointly charged with the commission of the offense and proof was offered tending to show that he aided and abetted the others in committing the crime, evidence of the guilt of the others and of their conviction was admissible.</p> <p>■4. Same! — Cross-examination of Defendant as to His Past Life and Conduct Permissible. While evidence of other and disconnected crimes may not be shown to establish the offense for which a defendant is on trial, the defendant, if he takes the stand and assumes the character of a witness, may be cross-examined to a reasonable extent within the discretion of the court as to his past life and conduct and as to any specific facts tending to disgrace or degrade him, not to prove the offense charged, but with a view of affecting his veracity and credibility.</p> <p>5. Same. To that end and within reasonable limits he may be asked about misconduct and frequent arrests for offenses of which he was not convicted.</p> <p>6. Samh$ — Remarks of Court. A remark made by the court in the course oí the trial is held not to be prejudicial error.</p> <p>7. Same — Instructions. Objections to instructions given are held to be without merit.</p>
Judges: Johnston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. RoselliSupreme Court of Kansas· 1921-05-07· cited 42×
- State ex rel. Hopkins v. HowatSupreme Court of Kansas· 1921-06-11· cited 34×
- State v. RiderSupreme Court of Kansas· 1965-03-06· cited 27×
- State v. ReuterSupreme Court of Kansas· 1928-07-07· cited 22×
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1921-02-12· cited 19×
- State v. FreseSupreme Court of Iowa· 1964-03-10· cited 17×
- State v. BoltonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1922-06-10· cited 17×
- State v. PfeiferSupreme Court of Kansas· 1936-04-11· cited 17×
- State v. WaldronSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-06-06· cited 12×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1922-11-04· cited 8×
- State v. NossamanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-02-02· cited 8×
- State v. StorySupreme Court of Kansas· 1936-07-03· cited 8×
- State v. McReynoldsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-04-11· cited 7×
- State v. HoelSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-02-06· cited 1×
Cites
3 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.