Case Name: State of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Elmer G. Paxton, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1968-06-19
Citations: 201 Kan. 607
Docket Number: No. 45,071
Parties: State of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Elmer G. Paxton, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
No. 45,071
State of Kansas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Elmer G. Paxton, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
(440 P. 2d 650)
Supplemental opinion filed June 19, 1968.
Raymond L. Spring, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Dale H. Corley, Lelyn J. Braun and Patrick J. Regan, of Garden City, and Richard D. Greene, of Denver, Colorado, were with him on the brief for the appellant and crossappellee.
Daniel D. Metz, assistant attorney general, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, attorney general, and John S. Elting, county attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee and cross-appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
O'Connor, J.:
The defendant (appellant) has filed a motion for rehearing on the decision affirming his conviction (State v. Paxton, 201 Kan. 353, 440 P. 2d 650). After careful consideration we find the motion should be and it is hereby denied.
Our attention, however, has been directed to certain matters in the second paragraph of page 361 of the opinion which should be corrected and clarified. Accordingly, the paragraph is deleted and in its stead the following is substituted:
After the trial, defense counsel apparently discovered that an aunt of the juror Ehmke had been a victim in a similar transaction in November 1963. The matter was brought to the attention of the trial court as a ground in defendant's motion for new trial in which he alleged the juror "probably" had knowledge of the previous transaction. There is nothing in the record indicating such knowledge on the part of the juror. Moreover, there is no showing that the defendant was connected with the prior transaction in any way. Clearly, this formed no basis for the granting of a new trial.
In all other respects we adhere to what was said and held in the original opinion.