State v. Smith
Citations
- 103 Kan. 148
- 174 P. 551
- 1918 Kan. LEXIS 207
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Homicide — Trial—Qualification of Jurors. Two jurors, after examination by the parties, stated to the court that they knew nothing about the facts of the case and their minds were in such condition that they could sit and try it as properly and impartially as though they had heard nothing about it. The trial court decided that they were free from bias, and overruled challenges for cause. Held, that, disqualification or abuse of discretion not appearing, such ruling must be sustained.</p> <p>2. Same. ,One juror stated that he had heard that the deceased made a dying statement, and was asked whether he had an opinion that when making it she believed she would not recover. An objection to this question was sustained. Held, that as the question itself was improper, and the juror testified that he was not acquainted with the deceased, knew no reason why he could not be a fair and impartial juror, did not entertain an opinion that she had been assaulted, and did not remember having talked with anybody about the crime, no error was committed in sustaining the objection. '</p> <p>g. Same — Reputation of Defendant — Cross-examination of Defendant. The defendant, having offered the testimony of numerous witnesses as to his reputation for being a peaceable and 'law-abiding citizen, was asked on cross-examination if he did not state at one time that he was the father of the unborn child of a certain person, to which he replied, “I certainly did not.” Another witness was' permitted to testify that at the time mentioned he did make such statement. Held, that the state was bound by the answer of the defendant on cross-examination as to this collateral issue, and it was error to admit the rebutting testimony;, but, in view of the crime charged, the character testimony, and the remoteness of the statement testified to, the error was not of sufficient importance to constitute material prejudice requiring a reversal.</p> <p>4. Same — Defense of Suic
Judges: West
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Stebens v. HandSupreme Court of Kansas· 1958-01-25· cited 18×
- State v. HaysSupreme Court of Kansas· 1923-06-09· cited 12×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Kansas· 1938-11-05· cited 10×
- Vassar v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1920-05-08· cited 9×
- State v. ElftmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1924-06-07· cited 9×
- Bagnall v. HuntSupreme Court of Kansas· 1930-12-06· cited 8×
- State v. BarbourSupreme Court of Kansas· 1935-07-06· cited 7×
- State v. SnowSupreme Court of Kansas· 1926-07-10· cited 6×
- Taft v. HyattSupreme Court of Kansas· 1919-04-12· cited 4×
- State v. LomaxSupreme Court of Kansas· 1953-12-12· cited 1×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. StewartSupreme Court of Kansas· 1911-07-07· cited 64×
- State of Kansas v. RobertsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1915-04-10· cited 46×
- State ex rel. Botts v. StoutSupreme Court of Kansas· 1917-11-10· cited 25×
- State v. PearceSupreme Court of Kansas· 1912-06-08· cited 20×
- Lola Saba & Son v. Detroit Copper Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1912-06-24· cited 19×
- State v. O'SheaSupreme Court of Kansas· 1899-07-08· cited 12×
- State v. FredericksonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1910-02-12· cited 9×
- State v. MolzSupreme Court of Kansas· 1914-03-07· cited 9×
- State v. ComptonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1915-03-06· cited 3×
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.