State v. Shufeldt

Court: Supreme Court of Kansas
Date filed: 1912-04-06
Citations: 86 Kan. 975, 122 P. 895, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 426
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Lead Opinion
Per Curiam:

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

The 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.

A 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

Page 976
evidence, 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.