City of Seattle v. Hawley
Decision Date | 24 April 1942 |
Docket Number | 28596. |
Citation | 124 P.2d 961,13 Wn.2d 357 |
Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE v. HAWLEY. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Edward J. Hawley was convicted of violating a city traffic ordinance, and appealed to the superior court where he was found guilty of negligent and hit and run driving, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hugh C Todd, Judge.
Will G Beardslee, George F. Ward, both of Seattle, for appellant.
A. C Van Soelen, George T. McGillivray, and Charles L. Conley, all of Seattle, for respondent.
Having been charged with, and convicted of, violations of the Seattle traffic ordinance, defendant appealed to the superior court, where he was found guilty by a jury of negligent and of 'hit and run' driving. He appeals from the judgment and sentence entered on the verdict.
Only one question is raised upon the appeal: Whether, during the trial, appellant's rights under Art. I, § 9, of the state constitution were violated. That section provides: 'No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, * * *.'
This court has repeatedly held that any comment or reference to the failure of a defendant to testify in his own behalf constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights under this provision. State v. Smokalem, 37 Wash. 91, 79 P. 603; Spokane v. Roberts, 132 Wash. 568, 232 P. 316; State v. Pavelich, 150 Wash. 411, 273 P. 182; State v. Paschall, 182 Wash. 304, 47 P.2d 15. Indeed, under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2148, it was mandatory that the jury be instructed that no inference of guilt should be drawn from a defendant's failure to take the witness stand. State v. Hanes, 84 Wash. 601, 147 P. 193. And, notwithstanding the abrogation of that provision by Supreme Court Rule of Practice XII, Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.) § 308-12, it is still necessary to give such an instruction on request. State v. Pavelich, supra; State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 527, 28 P.2d 1027.
Now, in the light of the scrupulous regard which the law has for this constitutional right accorded to persons accused of crime, let us examine the occurrence of which appellant complains. During recess, at the close of the city's case, a conference was had in the court's chambers, at which one of the attorneys for appellant told the court and opposing counsel that he was in 'doubt whether or not the Defendant would take the witness stand as a witness.' When court reconvend, with the jury present, the following colloquy between the court and counsel, took place:
It seems to us that the remarks of the court and of co...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...States Constitution and Const. art. 1, § 9, criminal defendants have the right not to testify at their own trial. Cf. Seattle v. Hawley, 13 Wash.2d 357, 124 P.2d 961 (1942) (no inference to be drawn from defendant's failure to testify). By forcing a criminal defendant to testify in order to......
-
State v. Torres
...jury to a defendant's failure to testify. See also Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964); Seattle v. Hawley, 13 Wash.2d 357, 124 P.2d 961 (1942); State v. Pavelich, 150 Wash. 411, 273 P. 182, Aff'd, 153 Wash. 701, 279 P. 1107 (1928); State v. Messinger, 8 Wash.Ap......
-
Suburban Transp. System v. Furse
... ... George ... E. Mathieu, of Seattle, for Furse, respondent ... STEINERT, ... Justice ... This is ... and the suburban areas lying north and south of the city, ... although the appellant has been so engaged for a longer time ... than Furse, and ... ...