State v. Shufeldt

Decided April 6, 1912

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1912-04-06

<p>HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.</p> <p>Evidence — Transcript from Internal Revenue Office — Instructions. ■ In a prosecution under the prohibitory law it was held: (1) That the certified transcript from the oifice of the collector of internal revenue offered in evidence was admis-. sible; (2) that the criticism of instructions relative to “reasonable doubt” and “presumption of Innocence” had been fully answered by former decisions of this court.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1915

2 state decisions

Relies on State v. Bridges · State v. Patton · State v. Medley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1912-04-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1This appeal is from a conviction under the prohibitory liquor law for maintaining a nuisance.

¶2The certified transcript from the office of the collector of internal revenue was admissible in evidence. (The State v. Shook, 75 Kan. 807, 90 Pac. 234; Topeka v. Stevenson, 79 Kan. 394, 99 Pac. 589.) The criticism of instructions relative to reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence is answered in The State v. Bridges, 29 Kan. 138, The State v. Medley, 54 Kan. 627, 39 Pac. 227, and The State v. Patton, 66 Kan. 486, 71 Pac. 840.

¶3A variance between the place described in the information and that shown by the evidence is suggested in the brief, but does not appear from the abstract. The criticism of the instructions is that they are unnecessarily full covering matters not appearing in the *976evidence, but no prejudice to the rights of the appellant or cause of serious complaint appears. The evidence justified the verdict and the judgment is affirmed.