[DOWNLOAD] "Kamen v. Gray" by Supreme Court of Kansas * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Kamen v. Gray
- Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
- Release Date : January 08, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. Lee Kamen, Petitioner, seeks to be discharged from the custody of respondent sheriff, by whom he is detained awaiting trial on a criminal charge. He claims that his imprisonment is unlawful and that he is being deprived of his liberty in violation of federal and state constitutions and laws. The following proceedings were had in the district court of Sedgwick county, prior to institution of these proceedings in habeas corpus. Petitioner, defendant below, was after a preliminary hearing before the city court of Wichita on May 9, 1949 on January 16, 1950, placed on trial before a jury in the district court of Sedgwick county on a charge of receiving stolen property, having waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The state introduced evidence of seven witnesses the seventh being Detective Reeves of the police department concerning a police report and alleged changes in the report, which report was offered in evidence and, over defendant's objections, admitted and read to the jury. Defendant again objected to admission of said report and asked the court to declare a mistrial because of prejudice to defendant by its erroneous admission, but was overruled by the court. The state then rested its case and the court called for introduction of the case for the defense, whereupon counsel for the defense asked that the jury be excused while he argued some motions to the court. Before the jury was excused, counsel for the state explained for the record and to the jury the purpose for which the police report in controversy was offered in evidence. The jury having been excused, counsel for defendant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty and discharge of defendant for the reason the state had failed to prove the allegations and averments alleged in the second amended information, which motion was argued by counsel and taken under advisement by the court. Court was recessed, and on reconvening, argument on the motion to dismiss continued for some time, whereupon the