State v. Murray
Citations
- 83 Kan. 148
- 110 P. 103
- 1910 Kan. LEXIS 486
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Criminal Law — All Witnesses Whose Names are Indorsed on Information Need Not be Called. On the trial of a criminal action' the state is not obliged to examine all the witnesses whose names are indorsed on the information, and in a prosecution for assault with intent to kill it is not error for the court to refuse to require the state to examine the person assaulted, his name being indorsed on the information as a witness.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Defense of MentqJ, Irresponsibility — Collateral and Immaterial Evidence. The defense to a prosecution for assault with intent to kill was mental irresponsibility occasioned by seeing the person assaulted stealthily enter the defendant’s home at night and hearing his wife’s confession concerning her relations with such person. The defendant testified that he had previous information from the person himself, and from others, respecting the licentious conduct of such person with women other than the defendant’s wife, and the defendant described the effect this.information had upon his mind, in connection with what he saw and what his wife told him, on the night referred to. Held, the details of the person’s licentious conduct with other women, as related by himself and others to the defendant, were not material. Held, further, that an offer of the defendant to show by a woman, who was a witness, that the person assaulted had tried to seduce her was properly denied.</p> <p>3. - Same. On the trial of the action referred to the wife of the defendant, as a witness in his behalf, related in detail her relations with the person assaulted as she told them to her husband on the night of her surprise. She told of salacious suggestions made to her by such person on a certain occasion. She was then asked if she assented to them, but was not permitted to answer. Held, the ruling was correct, because the issue was the defendant’s mental condition following what she told him, and not her chastity.</p> <p>4.
Judges: Burch
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. CusterSupreme Court of Kansas· 1929-12-07· cited 38×
- State v. JensenSupreme Court of Kansas· 1966-07-27· cited 33×
- State v. HardistySupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-10-06· cited 23×
- State v. NavarroSupreme Court of Kansas· 2001-12-07· cited 21×
- State v. RobersonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1972-07-19· cited 14×
- State v. AlbuttWashington Supreme Court· 1917-12-27· cited 9×
- State v. HanksSupreme Court of Kansas· 1956-01-28· cited 7×
- State v. MounkesSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-11-09· cited 7×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas· 1950-05-06· cited 6×
- City of McPherson v. HansonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-07-06· cited 1×
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.