¶1(dissenting): I find myself unable to agree with what is said in the majority opinion with reference to the colloquy that occurred at the time the jury reported and asked further instructions frdm the court. It would add but little to the progress of the law for me to give an extended discussion of that. I am persuaded, however, that it was a violation of orderly procedure and that the net result was to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
157 Kan. 11
State v. Howland
Decided June 12, 1943
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1943-06-12
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1943-06-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Odell v. Hudspeth (1951), State v. Oswald (1966)
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →