87 Kan. 861 | Kan. | 1912
-The opinion of the court was delivered by
In an information Katherine Tasr sell was charged with violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and was convicted of a sale and also of
The question presented on this appeal is whether the ruling granting permission to reindorse the witnesses’ names on the information is a ground of reversal. The criminal code provides that the county attorney shall subscribe his name’ to an information and indorse thereon the names of witnesses then known to him, and that if other witnesses become known to him afterward these also may be indorsed at such times before the trial as the court may, by rule or otherwise, prescribe. (Crim. Code, § 67.) It is contended that an information not signed by the county attorney as the statute provides would be invalid, and that if witnesses’ names are not indorsed thereon as the statute directs when the information is filed it, too, is necessarily invalid. The indorsement of the witnesses’ names on the information is no part of the charge which the defendant is required to meet, and whatever may be the effect of an omission to sign' an information it is clear that the failure of the county attorney to indorse the names of witnesses thereon when it is filed is not fatal. Even if the indorsement
“The prosecution ought not to be' defeated simply because the county attorney does not indorse the names of the witnesses at the time of the filing the information, or before the trial, for often, during the progress of the trial, a necessity arises for the introduction of evidence which could not have been anticipated on the part of the prosecution before the commencement thereof. ... In all cases where the request to indorse the names of witnesses upon the information during the trial is made in good faith, and to promote justice, the court has the authority to grant the same, keeping in view the just administration of the criminal laws and the right of the defendant for reasonable time to prepare to meet unexpected evidence.” (p. 85.)
(See, also, The State v. Sorter, 52 Kan. 531, 34 Pac. 1036; The State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, 37 Pac. 174;
The discretion vested in the court should, of course, be cautiously exercised, and to that end should require the county attorney to act with good faith and not permit the bringing in of important witnesses without the defendant having an opportunity to make due in•quiry into their standing and credibility. In this case, however, abundant opportunity for this purpose was given, as the names of the witnesses who testified at the trial on behalf of the state were indorsed on the information eleven days before the trial was had. No postponement of the trial was asked because of a want of information in regard to the witnesses, and it does not appear that any prejudice was suffered because the indorsement was not made at the time of filing :the information.
The judgment is affirmed..