Skip to main content

State v. Rambo

Citations

  • 69 Kan. 777
  • 77 P. 563
  • 1904 Kan. LEXIS 334

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>l. Criminal Procedure—Misconduct of Jury—Verdict Vitiated. A defendant on trial for murder did not testify in his own behalf. After conviction one of the jurors was sworn in support of a motion for a new trial and stated that while deliberating on the verdict he mentioned in the hearing of the other jurors that defendant did not testify, and said in the jury-room: “If anybody put anything like that [meaning a charge of murder] over my shoulders I would talk for myself,” and explained that he meant ‘ ‘ if anybody blamed anything on me that I was not guilty of, I would think my own talk [meaning testimony] would do me more good than anybody else’s.” Held, that the statements of the juror show a consideration by him of the circumstance that the defendant did not testify as prejudicial to the latter, which vitiates the verdict.</p> <p>2. --- Testimony of Juror on Motion for New TrialWeighed. After confessing the misconduct shown in the above paragraph, the juror testified that the failure of defendant to take the witness-stand in his own behalf was not considered by him in arriving at a verdict. Held, that such general denial did not overcome the obvious fact, apparent from the juror’s testimony, that the refusal of the person on trial to testify was considered by him to the prejudice of the defendant.</p> <p>3. -Failure of Defendant to Testify—Evidence of its Discussion by Jury Admissible. Section 215 of the code of criminal procedure (Gen. Stat. 1901, §5657) provides that the neglect or refusal of a person on trial to testify shall not raise a presumption of guilt, nor shall the same be considered by the court or jury. Held, that the testimony of a juror on the hearing of a motion for a new trial, reciting comments made by him in the jury-room on the failure of the person on trial to testify, is, in effect, the same as a narrative by him of extraneous facts not in evidence, and not proper to be considered, and is admissible to impeach

Judges: Smith, Stices

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.