State v. King

Citations

• 111 Kan. 140
• 206 P. 883
• 22 A.L.R. 1006
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 194

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Homicide — When Evidence Relating to Other Crimes is Admissible. In a trial for homicide, all pertinent facts which tend to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused are admissible; nor are such probative facts to be excluded merely because they may also prove or tend to prove that the accused has committed another crime or several crimes.</p> <p>2. Same — Admissibility of Evidence of Other Crimes Similar in Character. In a trial for murder, where the evidence tended to show that the victim had disappeared and was never afterwards seen alive and that the accused had possession of the victim’s property and intimate personal effects at and after the time of the victim’s disappearance and that the skeleton of the victim was found buried in a livery barn lot which had been occupied by the accused at the time of the victim’s disappearance, evidence tending to show the commission of two other murders, committed in substantially the same manner — the sudden disappearance of the victims, the resultant possession of their property and personal effects by the accused, and the exhumation and discovery of their remains on premises which were or had been in his possession, was admissible for the probative value of such facts in identifying the murderer of the victim in the case on trial.</p> <p>3. Same. Under the circumstances outlined in syllabus, paragraph 2, mere remoteness in time between the several homicides did not render the evidence pertaining thereto inadmissible.</p> <p>4. Same. Where the dominant facts pertaining to three homicides were so similar in character, in apparent motive, in common purpose, and in obvious results, as those outlined in syllabus, paragraph 2, and tended so convincingly to show that the victims must all have died through violence by a common hand, the facts pertaining to these homicides, whether committed before or after the one for which the accused was on trial, were admissible for their probative force i