State v. Knoll
Citations
- 69 Kan. 767
- 77 P. 580
- 1904 Kan. LEXIS 332
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Homicide—Charge of Manslaughter Sufficient. Error cannot be predicated of the overruling of a motion to quash an information of doubtful sufficiency to charge murder in the first degree when it was sufficient to charge manslaughter in the first degree, of which crime defendant was convicted.</p> <p>2. - Reason for Admission of “ Dying Declaration.” A “dying declaration” is hearsay evidence, and is taken out of .the rule excluding such evidence because of reasons of necessity, and because it is supposed that a realization on the part of the declarant of the certain and speedy approach of death affords as powerful incentive to tell the truth as does the administration of an oath.</p> <p>3. -Mental Condition of Declarant. In order to render such declarations admissible it must be first shown that the declarant was not only in articulo mortis, but under the sense of impending death, without hope of recovery, at the time such declarations were made.</p> <p>4. - Statements of Deceased Insufficient. The statements made by the deceased that he had to die of the whipping he had received from the defendant, and that he might die at any hour of any day, did not sufficiently show his sense of impending death to render his statements competent as “dying declarations.”</p> <p>5. Indeterminate-sentence Act— Section 6686, Not 6686, of the General Statutes of 1901, Repealed by Act of 1908. The title of chapter 375, Laws of 1903, known as the indeterminate-sentence law, recites that part of its purpose is to repeal section 5685 of the General Statutes of 1901. No mention of this section is made in the body of the act, but, instead, section 5686 is therein named as repealed. Prom the nature of chapter 375 and the matter therein treated, it is evident that it was intended to repeal section 5686. Held, that section 5685 is not repealed, and that section 5686 is repealed by implication, because chapter 375 covers the entire ground of that section and i
Judges: Cunningham
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Tatlow v. BaconSupreme Court of Kansas· 1917-06-09· cited 39×
- Thurston v. FritzSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-02-07· cited 16×
- State v. KnollSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-11-11· cited 15×
- Jones v. AmrineSupreme Court of Kansas· 1942-01-24· cited 13×
- State v. McAnarneySupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-01-07· cited 11×
- State v. CloseSupreme Court of Kansas· 1930-05-03· cited 10×
- City of Topeka v. McCabeSupreme Court of Kansas· 1909-01-12· cited 8×
- In re MurraySupreme Court of Kansas· 1913-02-08· cited 2×
Cites
1 case in this archive is 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.