Volume 208 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. SOCIAL WELFARE — <italic>Appeals Committee Exercises Quasi-judicial</italic> <italic>Functions — Eligibility — Appeal.</italic> An appeals committee of the State Department of Social Welfare exercises quasi-judicial functions in deciding the question of an applicant's eligibility for welfare payments. Hence an appeal may be taken from its decision to the district court pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-2101</cross_reference> (<italic>a</italic>). 2. SAME — <italic>Appeal from Decision of Appeals Committee — Venue.</italic> The venue of an appeal to the district court from a decision of an appeals committee of the State Department of Social Welfare is the county where the original application for welfare benefits was filed and denied and where the fair hearing was conducted. 3. SAME — <italic>Federal Welfare Act — Medical Examination</italic> <italic>Necessary.</italic> The Social Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 7, does not exempt an applicant for Aid to the Disabled benefits under Subchapter XIV from taking a medical examination when the applicant objects thereto for religious reasons. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — <italic>Regulation of Social Welfare — Medical</italic> <italic>Examination as Condition of Eligibility — Freedom of</italic> <italic>Religion Guaranteed by First Amendment Not Violated.</italic> The regulation of the State Department of Social Welfare which requires a medical examination as a condition of eligibility for receiving Aid to the Disabled benefits does not violate an applicant's freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 5. SAME — <italic>Requirement of Social Welfare — Medical Examination</italic> <italic>as Condition for Eligibility — Equal Protection Clause Not</italic> <italic>Violated.</italic> The requirement of a medical examination of an applicant for Aid to the Disabled benefits as a condition of eligibility and the exemption of such a requirement of applicants for medical care and for maternal or child health or crippled children's services under other subchapters does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6. SOCIAL WELFARE — <italic>Referee a Quasi-judicial Officer — Referee</italic> <italic>Should Not Act as Attorney for Department.</italic> The referee appointed by the State Board of Social Welfare to conduct a fair hearing for applicants who have been denied welfare benefits is a quasi-judicial officer and should not serve as an attorney to represent the State Department in subsequent proceedings in the same case.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Property Taken From One County Into Another —</italic> <italic>Venue.</italic> When property is taken by burglary in one county and brought into another county, the offender so doing may be charged, tried, and convicted pursuant to K.S.A. 62-407, in the county into which the property is taken in the same manner as if the crime had been committed in that county. 2. EVIDENCE — <italic>Photograph With Writing — Admission Proper.</italic> When a photograph is admitted into evidence with writing thereon identifying it and the writing is cumulative to evidence previously introduced no prejudice results from its admission. 3. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Evidence Admitted Over Objection — No</italic> <italic>New Grounds for Objection.</italic> Where evidence was admitted over the defendant's objection at trial, no new grounds for objection can be claimed on appeal. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — <italic>Admission of Registration Certificate —</italic> <italic>Documents Not a Witness — Right to Confrontation Not</italic> <italic>Violated.</italic> The constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses is not violated by the admission into evidence of an authenticated copy of a public record or document against the defendant. 5. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Unlawful Possession of Firearm —</italic> <italic>Circumstantial Evidence.</italic> Unlawful possession of a firearm by a defendant having a prior felony conviction may be proved by circumstantial evidence inconsistent with any reasonable conclusion or hypothesis other than guilt. 6. SEARCH AND SEIZURE — <italic>Looking Through Window of Automobile —</italic> <italic>Not a Search.</italic> A search implies prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. Looking through a window in an automobile does not constitute a search even though it is nighttime and the items can only be seen with the aid of a flashlight. 7. SAME — <italic>Object in Plain View — Admissibility.</italic> Objects in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence. 8. BURGLARY — <italic>Burglary Tools — Intent to Use — Proof.</italic> Under K.S.A. <cross_reference>21-2437</cross_reference>, the intent required is a general purpose to employ tools in burglarious enterprises and may be proved by: (<italic>a</italic>) concealment of tools on one's person, in one's clothing, carrying them in a car instead of storing them in a shop, resistance to arrest; (<italic>b</italic>) proof that defendant was guilty of recent burglaries or that he had the fruits of recent burglaries in his possession; and (<italic>c</italic>) admission into evidence of prior convictions of defendant for burglary and larceny.<page_number>Page 678</page_number> 9. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Prior Convictions — Admissible to Show</italic> <italic>Intent, Motive, etc.</italic> Where the defendant's prior conviction was used as evidence against him at trial as proof of a necessary element or ingredient of a crime charged it may not be used to enhance his sentence under the Habitual Criminal Act, but where the conviction was used at trial to show motive, intent, plan, or knowledge under K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-455</cross_reference> the conviction is usable in sentencing the defendant under other counts of the information on which the defendant was convicted.