State v. Carpenter

4 Citing cases

  1. Carpenter v. Crouse

    279 F. Supp. 275 (D. Kan. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Eventually, Claude Lee of Wichita was retained to prosecute the appeal from the Sedgwick County convictions, and Mr. Lee briefed and argued the appeal. The convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Court on July 10, 1965. (State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162, 403 P.2d 996.) XIII.

  2. State v. Masarsk

    422 P.2d 557 (Kan. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    This procedural rule still applies in criminal cases. ( State v. Holt, 197 Kan. 468, 419 P.2d 834; State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162, 403 P.2d 996, cert. den. 382 U.S. 948, 15 L.Ed.2d 356, 86 S.Ct. 409; State v. Ryan, 193 Kan. 672, 396 P.2d 363; State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 392 P.2d 953, cert. den. 380 U.S. 910, 13 L.Ed.2d 797, 85 S.Ct. 895; State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 381 P.2d 356; State v. Mize, 191 Kan. 129, 379 P.2d 317.) The appellant in the present criminal case filed notice of appeal indicating the appeal was to be based upon the order overruling motion for new trial.

  3. State v. Holt

    419 P.2d 834 (Kan. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    Notwithstanding his notice of appeal made no mention of the overruling of his motion for new trial and did not purport to appeal from that ruling, the defendant now, through his presently retained counsel, enumerates the following specifications of error: the trial court erroneously (1) admitted testimony of certain witnesses, (2) restricted the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, (3) gave instruction No. 21, (4) gave instruction No. 23, (5) submitted verdict forms that were confusing to the jury, (6) denied the defendant's requested instruction, and (7) overruled defendant's motion for new trial. It is readily apparent the first six specifications pertain only to trial errors ( State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162, 403 P.2d 996, cert. den. 382 U.S. 948, 15 L.Ed.2d 356, 86 S.Ct. 409; State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 381 P.2d 356), all of which were encompassed in the motion for new trial presented to the trial court. Defendant, however, did not attempt to appeal from the order overruling his motion for new trial, although he did include such order as his seventh specification of error.

  4. Schoof v. Byrd

    415 P.2d 384 (Kan. 1966)   Cited 13 times

    It is argued the only legal question presented by the appeal, therefore, is whether the findings made by the trial court, considered with the pleadings, support the conclusions of law and the judgment rendered. The appellee also contends before trial errors will be considered on appellate review, they must have been raised in the trial court by a motion for a new trial, citing Schmidt v. Cooper, 194 Kan. 403, 399 P.2d 888 (March 6, 1965, decision); and State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162, 403 P.2d 996, cert. den. 382 U.S. 948, 15 L.Ed.2d 356, 86 S.Ct. 409 (July 10, 1965, decision). Was it necessary for the appellant to object to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial court?