State v. Mortimer
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth District Court. The defendant was tried at the September Term 1877 in the district court, and found guilty of burglary in the first degree, and grand larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary for eleven years; and he now appeals to this court, and prays that the judgment be reversed and set aside. 1. The instructions given by the court to the jury were not all “in writing.”
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth District Court. The defendant was tried at the September Term 1877 in the district court, and found guilty of burglary in the first degree, and grand larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary for eleven years; and he now appeals to this court, and prays that the judgment be reversed and set aside. 1. The instructions given by the court to the jury were not all “in writing.” The words of the statute are, “The judge must charge the jury in writing, and the charge shall be filed among the papers of the cause.” In The State v. Potter, 15 Kas. 303, this court uses the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Yalentine, J.:
This was a criminal prosecution for burglary in the first degree, and for grand larceny. The first and principal question in the case is, whether the court below erred in permitting the witness D. A. Hook to testify concerning certain information which led to finding the stolen property, and which was given by the defendant under a promise from said witness, (who was at the time city marshal of the city of Leavenworth, and had the defendant un*98der his charge,) and from the owner of the property, that the defendant should not be prosecuted.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. DouglassWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- City of Atchison v. JansenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Bartell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- State v. CocklinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- State v. YoungerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.