State v. Rhoades

Citations

• 113 Kan. 455
• 215 P. 291
• 1923 Kan. LEXIS 128

Syllabus

<p>syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Criminal Law — Voir Dire -Examination of Jurors — -Improper Questions. In a criminal case a juror on his voir dire is not required to state what facts he would consider in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.</p> <p>2. Liquor Law — Persistent Violator — Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction. Where the evidence shows that one is in possession of a pint bottle containing a small quantity of whisky and three quart bottles partly filled with grape juice, having sufficient alcoholic content to be intoxicating, and he and his two companions are drunk, held, sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of having in his possession intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.</p> <p>3. Same — Defendant a Witness in His Own Behalf — Proper Cross-examination. Where the defendant, in a criminal case, takes the witness stand in his own behalf, the extent to which he may be questioned upon matters which affect his credibility is largely within the discretion of the court. Held, in this case the examination was confined to proper limits.</p> <p>4. Same — Motion for New Trial — Absent Witness — No Diligence Shown. It is not error for the court to refuse a new trial because of an absent witness when no continuance had been asked for that reason, and no diligence to procure the attendance of the witness for the trial was shown, and where the evidence offered is of such a character that it likely would not produce a different result on a retrial.</p> <p>5. Same — No Improper Conduct of Jury. The fact that jurors, after returning a verdict and being discharged, declined to discuss what transpired in the jury room with the attorney for the losing party, does not tend to prove that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.</p>