State v. Snodgrass
Supreme Court of Kansas
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. JUNE 27, 1893, John Snodgrass was convicted of rape. He appeals. The opinion states the material facts. There was not a substantial compliance with the statutes in the selection of this jury, and the defendant in a criminal action has “the right to insist that there shall be a substantial compliance with the law.” And where there is a departure from the statutes in the selection of a jury, it is sufficient ground to quash the panel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. JUNE 27, 1893, John Snodgrass was convicted of rape. He appeals. The opinion states the material facts. There was not a substantial compliance with the statutes in the selection of this jury, and the defendant in a criminal action has “the right to insist that there shall be a substantial compliance with the law.” And where there is a departure from the statutes in the selection of a jury, it is sufficient ground to quash the panel. The State v. Jenkins, 32 Kas. 479. The most palpable invasion of the defendant’s rights in the trial of this case occurs in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JohNstoN, J.:
On the 27th day of June, 1893, John Snodgrass was convicted upon a charge of rape, alleged to have been forcibly committed upon the person of Annie A. Loomis, and the punishment adjudged was confinement in the penitentiary at hard labor for a term of 12 years. In his appeal, he justly complains of the action of the court in overruling challenges for cause made to several persons who were called as jurors. There were four or five of the persons so unsuccessfully challenged who held' opinions of a fixed character, and which disqualified them…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. MedlicottSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Madden v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
- Morton v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. StewartSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- State v. OttoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1899