State v. Aldrick

• Citation: 97 Wash. 593,166 P. 1130
• Decision Date: 13 August 1917
• Docket Number: 14152.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: STATE v. ALDRICK.

166 P. 1130

97 Wash. 593

STATE v. ALDRICK.

No. 14152.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 13, 1917

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L Kennan, Judge.

Arthur Aldrick was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

Robertson & Miller, of Spokane, for appellant.

John B White and Harry G. Kinzel, both of Spokane, for the State.

MAIN, J.

The defendant in this case was charged by information with the crime of rape, committed upon a female child under the age of 15 years. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment entered upon this verdict, the defendant appeals.

The facts, briefly stated, are these: The appellant, on the 23d day of July, 1916, was living at the home of the father of the prosecuting witness, and had been making his home there for a few months previous to that time. On the evening of the day mentioned, in the dining room of the home, at about the hour of 9:30 o'clock, the offense is claimed to have been committed. The father of the prosecuting witness was employed in a restaurant, and worked from 7 o'clock in the evening until 7 o'clock in the morning. An uncle of the prosecuting witness was in the house at the time, in an upstairs room. Immediately after the occurrence, the appellant was arrested by two police officers, who had observed the commission of the offense through a window of the house; the dining room at the time being lighted. Two young men testified that from a room in the adjoining house they had observed a similar occurrence a few evenings previous. This being reported to the chief of police, the two officers mentioned were detailed upon the matter. The day following the commission of the crime, the appellant signed a written confession in the pressence of two or three persons who testified as witnesses. Upon the trial, the appellant repudiation the confession, in that he did not read it before signing, and did not know its contents.

Shortly after the occurrence, the uncle took the child to the restaurant where her father was at work, but no conversation took place between the child and the father at that time; the latter directing the uncle to take her home and saying that he would see her the next morning. The police officers, or one of them, previous to this visit, and the uncle at the time, informed the father what had taken place. On the following morning, at about 7:30 o'clock, the father returned home and had a conversation with his daughter, in which she detailed to him the particulars of the offense and what the appellant had told her as an inducement. Upon the witness stand, the father, over objection, was permitted to detail what his daughter had told him on the morning following the occurrence, and this presents the principal question here for determination. The rule is well settled in this state that the fact that the ravished person made complaint after the occurrence may be shown in evidence either by the testimony of the complaining witness or by the person to whom the complaint was made. This rule is recognized by the appellant, but it is claimed that it does not go so far as to permit the details or particulars of the complaint to be related. As to whether such details or particulars may be offered in evidence, the authorities generally are in conflict; but this court has adopted the view that, while the complaint may be shown, the details or particulars are subject to objection. In State v Hunter, 18 Wash. 670, 52...