State v. Baldwin

Citation15 Wash. 15,45 P. 650
PartiesSTATE v. BALDWIN ET AL.
Decision Date19 June 1896
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Appeal from superior court, Skagit county; Henry McBride, Judge.

Edwin Baldwin and others were convicted of manslaughter, and appeal. Affirmed.

Lindsay, King & Turner and Sinclair & Smith, for appellants.

George A. Joiner and J. T. Ronald, for the State.

SCOTT J.

The defendants were convicted of manslaughter, and have appealed. The body of the information under which they were tried is as follows: "Edwin Baldwin, Ozro Perkins, and Ulysses Loop are accused by George A. Joiner, as prosecuting attorney of Skagit county, state of Washington, by this information, of the crime of murder in the first degree, committed as follows: The said Edwin Baldwin, Ozro Perkins, and Ulysses Loop, in the county of Skagit, state of Washington, on the 9th day of August, A. D. 1895, then and there being, did purposely and of their deliberate and premeditated malice kill one Alonzo Wheeler by then and there purposely and of their deliberate and premeditated malice striking and beating him, the said Alonzo Wheeler, with a heavy stick, to wit, a cane, kicking and stamping him with the heels of their boots and shoes, and shooting him with a certain gun, to wit a revolver, loaded with powder and ball, thereby mortally wounding the said Alonzo Wheeler, of which mortal wounds he the said Alonzo Wheeler, on the 15th day of August, A. D 1895, died." The defendants demurred thereto, on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute a crime, and the overruling of the demurrer is insisted upon as error, for the reasons that, while the information charges that the blow was given in Skagit county, on the 9th day of August, 1895 it also alleges that the deceased did not die until the 15th day of August, and the place of death is not alleged. This contention is urged on two grounds, one of which is that the court had no jurisdiction to try the offense. The other is that it violated the constitutional right of the defendants to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. In support of the first ground appellants cite Ball v. U. S., 140 U.S. 118, 11 S.Ct. 761. But that case was decided under the common-law rule, and it is not applicable here under our statutes. Section 4, p. 47, Laws 1891, provides for the trial of all criminal actions in the county where the offense was committed, and this offense was committed in Skagit county, regardless of the time or place of death of the deceased. The next objection does not seem to have been presented to the court on the argument of the demurrer, but was raised by an objection at the trial to proof of the place of death offered by the state. It was not an error going to the jurisdiction of the court, and from the proofs it is apparent that no harm resulted to the defendants.

The next question is that the defendants could not be tried by information, but must be prosecuted under an indictment by a grand jury. As this point had been previously decided by this court contrary to the contentions of appellant, in a case pending on an appeal to the supreme court of the United States ( State v. Nordstrom, 7 Wash. 506, 35 P. 382), it was not urged upon the oral argument, the desire of appellants being to save the question, and the court will at this time follow its former ruling.

The point mainly relied upon by the appellants is that the court erred in admitting in evidence the dying declaration of the deceased, appellants contending that such evidence is inadmissible in any case under the constitution and laws of this state, and as relating to this particular declaration it is contended that it was inadmissible, because the deceased had been convicted of an infamous crime, and had not been pardoned; that it did not appear sufficiently by the evidence that at the time of making the declaration the declarant was impressed with the belief of impending death; and because it appears from the record that such dying declaration is not in the language of the declarant, and there being some proof to show that a portion of it is contrary to his statements. As to the first proposition, the provision of the constitution is cited, declaring that the accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses against him face to face, etc. (section 22, art. 1); and also section 1309, 2 Hill's Code, providing that the rules of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • People v. Duffield, 31
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 4 mai 1972
    ...in text, Supra, p. 37) and the opinion cites no authority, common law or otherwise for its conclusion. WASHINGTON: State v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 15; 45 P. 650 (1896). The place of the blow was alleged in the information but place of death was not alleged. In holding that the allegation was unn......
  • State v. Foster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 11 juin 1998
    ...See, e.g., Mattox, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878); State v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 15, 18-19, 45 P. 650 (1896) (admission of dying declaration in murder trial did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses face to face as it was t......
  • State v. Loon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 15 juin 1916
    ...... of the dying declaration. ( People v. Crews, 102 Cal. 174, 36 P. 367; Wigmore's Ev., sec. 1442.). . . The. fact that it was not in the exact language of the declarant. would not render it inadmissible. ( State v. Baldwin, . 15 Wash. 15, 45 P. 650.). . . Another. exception to the rule that self-serving declarations are. inadmissible is to be found in the reception of a party's. declarations as to his physical or mental condition, when. such are in controversy. (Wharton's Criminal Evidence,. secs. ......
  • State v. Sandoval, 23754-1-III.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 13 mars 2007
    ...article I, section 22. See id. at 459-64, 957 P.2d 712; State v. Swan, 114 Wash.2d 613, 666, 790 P.2d 610 (1990); State v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 15, 18-19, 45 P. 650 (1896). Finally, while the fifth factor always supports an independent state constitutional analysis, the sixth factor is not as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT