State v. Beard
| Decision Date | 30 August 1928 |
| Docket Number | 21257. |
| Citation | 148 Wash. 701,269 P. 1051 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BEARD. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; R. M. Webster, Judge.
George Beard was convicted of being a jointist, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. C Donovan, of Spokane, for appellant.
Chas W. Greenough and Carl P. Lang, both of Spokane, for the State.
Appellant convicted of the crime of being a jointist appeals and urges several grounds of error.
His first error claimed is that the court erred in permitting evidence in rebuttal, which showed that appellant had previously been convicted of a crime. Appellant testified as a witness in his own behalf. While so testifying, the state started to examine him with regard to such previous conviction, by asking him whether he was the same person named in the transcript of the judgment of conviction issued from the justice court. Upon objection to the question, the state did not press the matter, but contented itself with introducing the record in rebuttal. This was proper. We held, in State v. Pielow, 141 Wash. 302, 251 P. 586, that under our statute (Rem. Comp. Stats. § 2290) it was not essential that a defendant be first cross-examined as to the conviction.
Appellant has also urged that the evidence of conviction should have been offered as a part of the state's case in chief. But, until a defendant has offered himself as a witness, the state may not attack his character. It is only after he testifies that evidence may be offered for the purpose of affecting the weight of his testimony.
It is also urged that the transcript of the judgment of conviction did not show that it was authenticated by the 'legal custodian thereof.' The transcript in the usual form was issued and certified by S. A. Mann, a justice of the peace, the same justice before whom the conviction was had. Justices of the peace are the legal custodians of the records of their offices, and we think it highly technical to urge that a certificate by a justice must contain a statement that he is the legal custodian of the records of his office.
It is next said that there was a failure of identification of certain marked money offered as an exhibit in the case. With this contention we cannot agree. It was not identified by the deputy sheriff who marked the money, due to the fact that he was not called as a witness; but another deputy sheriff testified that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. City of Seattle
...to the admission in evidence of the records and proceedings of any court. RCW 5.44.010, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1254. See, also, State v. Beard, 148 Wash. 701, 269 P. 1051. Respondent's contention that these exhibits were properly excluded under the so-called 'dead man's statute', RCW 5.60.030, Rem......
-
City of Mercer Island v. Walker
...387 P.2d 746, 748--749 (1963), we stated: The general rule is that evidence of a prior conviction is not admissible. State v. Beard, 148 Wash. 701, 269 Pac. 1051 (1928) * * Another exception to the rule is provided by RCW 10.52.030, which allows the state to show a conviction of a felony or......
-
State v. Sayward
...you should find him guilty as charged.' The general rule is that evidence of a prior conviction is not admissible. State v. Beard, 148 Wash. 701, 269 P. 1051 (1928). A similar problem is discussed in State v. Dinges, 48 Wash.2d 152, at page 154, 292 P.2d 361, at page 362 (1956), where we 'A......