State v. Adams
| Decision Date | 29 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20558. |
| Citation | 144 Wash. 699,257 P. 387 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. E. W. ADAMS, Respondent. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Findley, Judge.
Ewing D. Colvin and Harry A. Rhodes, both of Seattle, for the State.
Henry Clay Agnew, W. E. Barnhart, and L. A. Michelson, all of Seattle, for respondent.
The above case is similar in all respects to the case of State v. Sickles (Wash.) 257 P. 385, except that in this case defendant did not make any offers of proof of any witnesses produced other than that of defendant, who himself testified, or make any showing as to the reason why a list of witnesses was not furnished the prosecution as provided by statute.
The trial court made the same order in this case as was made in the Sickles Case, supra.
What he should have done would have been to call for reasons, if any, why the list of witnesses had not been furnished by the defendant earlier, and exercised his discretion as to whether the witnesses would be allowed to testify on behalf of the defendant, although no list of witnesses had been furnished by defendant or his counsel before trial.
The result reached in ordering a new trial was correct, whatever the reason, and it is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lunsford
... ... witnesses until the night before the trial. In the case at ... bar, no offer of proof was made, nor was it shown when ... appellant decided that he would offer Mrs. Dennison as a ... witness on his behalf. In the case of State v ... Adams, 144 Wash. 699, 257 P. 387, a companion case to ... that of State v. Sickles, supra, in a short per curiam ... opinion, a similar order to that from which the state ... appealed in the Sickles Case, entered by the same judge upon ... approximately the same state of facts, ... ...
-
State v. Martin
...received a list of witnesses from the prosecution, without violating the constitutional right to compulsory process.' In State v. Adams, 144 Wash. 699, 257 P. 387, the situation was identical with that in State v. Sickles, except that no offer of proof was made, nor was any excuse shown for......
-
State v. Hein, 30605.
... ... In ... such case the exclusion of the testimony of the witnesses for ... the defendant would prevent the defendant from having a fair ... trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution.' ... Our ... holding in the companion case of State v. Adams, 144 ... Wash. 699, 257 P. 387, appears in this statement: ... 'The ... trial court made the same order in this case as was made in ... the Sickles case, supra [ State v. Sickles, 144 ... Wash. 236, 257 P. 385] ... 'What ... he should ... ...