State v. Smith

Citations

• 84 Kan. 646
• 114 P. 1074
• 1911 Kan. LEXIS 385

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Perjury — Information—Prosecutor’s Belief that Defendant Knew of Violation of Gambling Laws. In an information for perjury, committed in testifying before a justice of the peace in a proceeding under section 2732 of the General Statutes of 1909, it is not necessary to allege that the county attorney who subpoenaed the defendant to testify before the justice had reason to believe that the defendant knew of violations of the laws against gambling.</p> <p>2. - Variance — Allegations and Proof. In a prosecution for perjury it is sufficient if the proof conform substantially to the charge.</p> <p>3. - “Proceeding” — Inquisition — Violation of Gambling Laws. The procuring of testimony of one believed by the county attorney to have knowledge of violations of the gambling laws, by causing such person to appear before a justice of the peace under section 2732 of the General Statutes of 1909, is a “proceeding” within the meaning of the perjury statute (Gen. Stat. 1909, §2640).</p> <p>4. - Instructions — Duty of. Judge — Individual Duty of Each Juror. An instruction that before the jury can convict they must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that “a reasonable doubt is that state of the ease which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they can not say that they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge; that is, to a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it,” is ordinarily a sufficient admonition as to the separate individual duty of each juror.</p>