State v. Swartz

Citations

• 87 Kan. 852
• 126 P. 1091
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 255

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Criminal Law — Jurors—Order of Challenge — Judicial Discretion. Where a defendant in a criminal action is allowed a full opportunity to examine and challenge for cause every juror called into the box the allowance of a challenge by the county attorney of three jurors at one time is not prejudicially erroneous.</p> <p>2. - Examination of Jurors. Where in an examination of a juror concerning his competency an objection to a question is sustained, but the next question, answered without •objection, elicits the information sought by the first one, the ruling is without prejudice.</p> <p>'3. -Instructions — Reasonable Doubt. Where sufficient instructions concerning reasonable doubt are given the refusal of other instructions purporting to further define that term is not erroneous.</p> <p>4. -Instructions — Transaction Relied Upon for Conviction. An instruction that the state relies for conviction upon a certain specified transaction as testified to by the prosecuting witness, is not open to the objection that it assumes that the transaction so testified to has in fact occurred.</p> <p>5. - Evidence — Rebuttal—Sélf-contradiction by Witness. Where a witness testifies to the time and circumstances of the defendant’s appearance at a certain place, in support of the claim that he was not present when and where the alleged offense was committed, evidence that the witness had' previously stated that he was asleep at the time referred to in his testimony is admissible after his attention has been properly directed to such previous statement upon cross-examination.</p>