TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Arnold

The State of Kansas v. B. C. Arnold

State v. Arnold, 43 P. 267 (Kan. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 11, 1896
Docket
No. 10429
Judges
Allen
Citations
43 P. 26756 Kan. 3071896 Kan. LEXIS 14
Headnotes
Judgment bob Costs ■ — no 'Appeal, When. No appeal lies from an order of the district court made in a proceeding to prevent the commission of an offense, under article 2 of the code of criminal procedure, adjudging the costs of the proceeding against the defendant.
Summary
Appeal from Ellis District Court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion, filed January 11, 1896.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Allen

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Allen, J.

: B. C. Arnold gave bond for his appearance at the district court of Ellis county, and in the *308 meantime to kéep the peace. He appeared as required by the terms of Ms bond, and the court thereupon entered an order discharging him, and requiring him to pay the costs of the proceeding, taxed at $4.60. Prom this order he seeks to appeal. The papers were first filed in the court of appeals, western division of the northern department, and were afterward certified to this court. The state challenges the right of the defendant to appeal.

In Mitchell’s Case, 39 Kan. 762 , it was held that the payment of costs in a proceeding of this kind could not be enforced by imprisonment of the defendant. In In re Boyd, 34 Kan. 570 , it was held that a judgment for costs in a criminal case is no part of the punishment of the offense

This proceeding was not a criminal prosecution for the purpose of punishing the defendant for the commission of a crime, but was a proceeding to prevent the commission of an offense, under article 2 of the code of criminal procedure. The extent of the judgment which the court could render ;against the defendant was to require him to give a new recognizance and to pay the costs of the proceeding. The judgment in this case is for costs only, which amount to but a trifling sum; but whether much or little, this is not such a judgment as a defendant may appeal from under section 281 of the code of criminal procedure. That section has reference only to judgments inflicting some punishment on the defendant.

No appeal lies either to the court of appeals or to this court, and the case is dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1920: 12012: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Berreth273 P.3d 752 (Kan. 2012)
  2. State v. Allen191 P. 476 (Kan. 1920)

Most recent

  1. State v. Berreth273 P.3d 752 (Kan. 2012)
  2. State v. Allen191 P. 476 (Kan. 1920)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Boyd, 34 Kan. 570 (1886) 18
In re Mitchell for a writ of Habeas Corpus, 39 Kan. 762 (1888) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list