State v. Beaudin
| Citation | 76 Wash. 306,136 P. 137 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1913 |
| Parties | STATE v. BEAUDIN. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; E. H. Wright Judge.
John S Beaudin was convicted of sodomy, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. H. Jahnke, of Centralia, and Wesley Lloyd, of Tacoma, for appellant.
C. D Cunningham, of Centralia, and H. E. Donohoe, of Chehalis, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of sodomy, alleged to have been committed upon the person of his daughter, a child 2 1/2 years of age, and has appealed from the judgment and sentence entered upon the verdict.
Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the information, and contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. Without stating the information of the evidence, we announce our conclusion that there is no merit in either contention.
The evidence is revolting, and will not be stated in this opinion further than is absolutely necessary. The state produced a witness who testified that on certain occasions, after the alleged commission of the crime, the child made complaint and further testified to statements which the child made to her. Error is assigned upon the court's refusal to exclude evidence of this character, further than a mere statement of the fact that the complaint had been made. This contention must be sustained. It was proper to permit the witness to testify that complaint had been made at or about the time of the alleged act, but it was error to permit the witness to repeat statements made to her by the child. To do so was an indirect method of introducing evidence which could not have been given by the child herself, owing to her tender years; there being no contention that the remarks made by the child were any part of the res gestae.
The state introduced a witness showing the condition of the child's person shortly after the commission of the alleged offense, and also produced a physician, who, as a medical expert, testified that such a condition might have been the result of acts constituting the crime with which appellant is charged. Thereafter, appellant produced another physician as a witness, who was asked what other causes, if any, would produce the condition to which the first physician had testified. Upon objection by counsel for the state this evidence was excluded. In this the trial court erred. It was competent for the physician to say what other causes could have produced the condition to which the state's witness had testified.
After the jury had been instructed, had retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and had deliberated about four hours, they returned into the court and requested the trial judge to give them further instructions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pugh
...be admissible if they were made immediately after the crime and fell within the res gestae exception. Id.; see, e.g., State v. Beaudin, 76 Wash. 306, 307, 136 P. 137 (1913) (it was proper to permit the mother to testify that the complaint was made by her very young daughter, but error to pe......
-
State v. Hunt
...632; Havenor v. State, 125 Wis. 444, 104 N. W. 116, 4 Ann. Cas. 1052; Gardner v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 394, 117 S. W. 140; State v. Beaudin, 76 Wash. 306, 136 Pac. 137; State v. Shutzler, 82 Wash. 365, 144 Pac. 284; Pearson v. State, 119 Ark. 152, 178 S. W. 914. In like manner a verdict of ......
-
State v. Ryan
...Lounsbery, 74 Wash.2d 659, 661, 445 P.2d 1017 (1968); State v. Murley, 35 Wash.2d 233, 236-37, 212 P.2d 801 (1949); State v. Beaudin, 76 Wash. 306, 307, 136 P. 137 (1913). See also 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 804(a), at 804-40 (1981). Exceptions to the general rule ar......
-
State v. Jarrell
...50 So. 621 (1909); Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1, 26 A.2d 770 (1942); Shanks v. State, 185 Md. 437, 45 A.2d 85 (1945), and State v. Beaudin, 76 Wash. 306, 136 P. 137 (1913). Therefore, in a criminal prosecution a defendant should be allowed to introduce both expert opinion evidence and cross-e......
-
Confronting Child Victims of Sex Abuse: the Unconstitutionality of the Sexual Abuse Hearsay Exception
...the statement. The court also admitted the statements made by the child to his mother under the excited utterance exception. 46. 76 Wash. 306, 136 P. 137 (1913). The court held that it was proper to admit the hearsay statements of a 2½ year-old child to the effect that the child had complai......