Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

229 Kan. 104

621 P.2d 995

State v. Lamkin

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 17, 1981

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1981-01-17

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1988

14 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““[A]ppeals on questions reserved by the prosecution in criminal actions will not be entertained merely to demonstrate whether or not errors have been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State. Such questions must be of statewide interest and answers thereto must be vital to a correct and uniform administration of the criminal law.” Syl. f 2.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Brown, State v. Busse

““Appeals to the supreme court may be taken by the prosecution from cases before a district judge as a matter of right in the following cases, and no others: “(1) From an order dismissing a complaint, information or indictment; “(2) from an order arresting judgment; “(3) upon a question reserved by the prosecution; or “(4) upon an order granting a new trial in any case involving a class A or B felony.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Stewart

Relies on State v. Crozier · State v. Glaze

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-01-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fromme, J.:

¶2The defendant, Lawrence C. Lamkin, was charged with criminal damage to property of Westward Industries, Inc. The defendant drove a pickup truck in circles over the lawn in front of the building housing this food manufacturing firm. The cost of repair of the lawn was estimated to be $480.00. At the close of the State’s evidence, the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on the ground the State had failed to introduce any evidence to establish that Westward Industries, Inc. had an interest in the property injured, damaged or substantially impaired. The State in its brief and during oral argument acknowledged the question raised is one asking this court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence introduced at the trial.

¶3Under K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3602(b) an appeal may be taken by the prosecution in a criminal trial as a matter of right after a final *105judgment in the district court in three situations: (1) From an order dismissing a complaint, information or indictment; (2) from an order of the district court arresting judgment; and (3) upon a question reserved by the prosecution. State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. 120, Syl. ¶ 2, 587 P.2d 331 (1978). However, appeals on questions reserved by the prosecution in criminal actions will not be entertained merely to demonstrate whether or not errors have been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State. Such questions must be of statewide interest and answers thereto must be vital to a correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324, Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 436 P.2d 377 (1968). A judgment of acquittal entered by the trial court on a motion filed by the defendant at the close of the State’s evidence is final and not appealable by the State, except in those special circumstances when the question reserved by the State is of statewide interest and is vital to a correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. at 126; State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. at 325.

¶4In the present case the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to establish that Westward Industries, Inc. had an interest in the property damaged is not of statewide interest and an answer to such a question does not appear vital to a correct and uniform administration of the criminal law.

¶5Appeal dismissed.

/229/kan/104 · .json · Public domain