State v. Austin
| Decision Date | 08 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12300. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. AUSTIN. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Jos. Sessions, Judge.
J. F. Austin was convicted, and appeals. Affirmed.
H. N. Martin, of Davenport, and E. A. Hesseltine, of Wilbur, for appellant.
Jas. S. Freece, Pros. Atty., and C. A. Pettijohn, both of Davenport, for the State.
In addition to the questions raised and decided in the case of State v. Kenney, 145 P. 450, it is complained that the court erred in permitting jurors to serve or to become subject to challenge by the defendant; it appearing that the jurors objected to had served as jurors in the Kenney Case. The court did not abuse its discretion. The jurors qualified themselves. So far as we have been able to discover, no juror was allowed to sit in the case who had not asserted that he would disregard the testimony given in the other case and render a verdict upon the facts as disclosed in the instant case.
It is also contended that the prosecuting attorney and counsel for the state were guilty of misconduct, in that they persistently called the attention of the jury to the fact that the defendant was a brother-in-law of one Ed Gray, who had been convicted of horse stealing. The only acts of counsel which, if torn from their settings, might be called misconduct, was in asking character witnesses called to sustain those whose reputations had been put in issue whether they did not know that defendant had been guilty of some misconduct, and whether they (the witnesses) did not know that he lived with and associated with people of questionable character. This was within the limit of legitimate cross-examination.
We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Donaldson
...witnesses, the state did not transcend the bounds of legitimate interrogation, as defined by this court in the cases of State v. Austin, 83 Wash. 444, 145 P. 451, and State v. McMullen, 142 Wash. 7, 252 P. See also State v. Robinson, 24 Wash.2d 909, 915--916, 167 P.2d 986 (1946). Thereafter......
-
State v. Cyr
...witnesses to be cross-examined as to their knowledge of particular acts of misconduct. This court follows the latter rule. State v. Austin, 83 Wash. 444, 145 P. 451. State v. Stilts, 181 Wash. 305, 312, 42 P.2d 779. The form of these questions was therefore proper. This court, however, adhe......
-
State v. Robinson
... ... character in issue by calling witnesses who testified that it ... was good. In cross-examining these witnesses, the state did ... not transcend the bounds of legitimate interrogation, as ... defined by this court in the cases of State v ... Austin, 83 Wash. 444, 145 P. 451, and State v ... McMullen, 142 Wash. 7, 252 P. 108.' In so deciding, ... this court followed the holdings of the majority of courts in ... this country. The cases are listed in State v ... Shull, 131 Or. 224, 282 P. 237, 71 A.L.R. 1504 ... ...
-
State v. Briscoe, 41252
...evaluate the direct testimony of the character witness. Impeaching testimony may materially reduce its credibility. State v. Austin, 83 Wash. 444, 145 P. 451 (1915); State v. McMullen, 142 Wash. 7, 252 P. 108 (1927); State v. Stilts, 181 Wash. 305, 42 P.2d 779 (1935); State v. Anderson, 46 ......