State v. Barker
| Decision Date | 17 July 1906 |
| Parties | STATE v. BARKER. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.
Stephen Barker was convicted of conniving at the abduction of his wife, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
James H. Naylor, for appellant.
J. W Hartnett, for the State.
Appellant was charged with the crime of conniving at the prostitution of his wife, she being the prosecuting witness. At the time of the trial she had been informed against by the prosecuting attorney upon a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, having, it was alleged, made an attempt to kill defendant. She had retained the services of an attorney to conduct her defense. On the trial of defendant this attorney was in the courtroom, but had no proper connection with the conduct of the trial. While the prosecuting witness was upon the witness stand, said attorney was observed to be making signals to her by movements of the head, expressions of the face, and by motions of a lead pencil which he carried in his hand. Neither the prosecuting attorney nor the defendant's attorney noticed any of these signals, and neither of them were aware of their being made until subsequently informed, said information being given them before the close of the trial. Three or four attorneys, not engaged in the trial, but who were sitting within the bar, were called to the witness stand, and testified that they had seen said attorney giving said signals, and that the prosecuting witness appeared to give answers, to questions propounded, in accordance with the apparent meaning and direction of said signals. The prosecuting witness and her said attorney each went upon the stand thereafter, and admitted that signals were made by said attorney, and that the prosecuting witness observed the directions conveyed by means of said signals. But both claimed that the giving and receiving of said signals was solely for the purpose of protecting said prosecuting witness against answering questions which might tend to incriminate her. The trial was proceeded with, and a verdict of guilty returned against the defendant. From the judgment entered thereupon, this appeal is taken.
Several errors are assigned, but most of them refer to matters that will probably not occur upon a retrial of this case which we think will be necessary for reasons hereinafter set forth. One error assigned is upon the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wiatt
...to support his contention that coaching a witness to cry could be reversible error, but that case is not on point. In State v. Barker, 43 Wash. 69, 86 P. 387 (1906), our Supreme Court reversed a conviction after several attorneys who watched the trial, but did not participate, testified tha......
-
State v. Krajeski
...See State v. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 14, 153 P. 1084 (1915); State v. Muller, 80 Wash. 368, 375, 141 P. 910 (1914); State v. Barker, 43 Wash. 69, 71, 86 P. 387 (1906); State v. Zenner, 35 Wash. 249, 251-52, 77 P. 191 5. State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). ...
-
State v. Schuman
...unlawfully' sufficiently charge knowledge and evil intent. State v. Muller, supra; State v. Zenner, 35 Wash. 249, 77 P. 191; State v. Barker, 43 Wash. 69, 86 P. 387. information charges the crime in the language of the statute so far as applicable to the facts, and in words well calculated ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Doe
...(N.Y.Sup.Ct. Oct. 15, 2012) (unreported decision); see also Graves v. State, 489 S.W.2d 74, 82 (Tenn.Crim.App.1972); State v. Barker, 43 Wash. 69, 86 P. 387, 388 (1906). There is some authority for the proposition, however, that an attorney for a witness in a civil trial has no general righ......