State v. Belknap

• Decision Date: 08 December 1906
• Citation: 87 P. 934,44 Wash. 605
• Parties: STATE v. BELKNAP.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

87 P. 934

44 Wash. 605

STATE v. BELKNAP.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 8, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Pacific County; A. E. Rice, Judge.

William Belknap was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed and new trial ordered.

Welsh & Welsh, for appellant.

H. W B. Hewen and William G. Crosby, for the State.

RUDKIN J.

This was a prosecution for the crime of seduction, and from a judgment of conviction the present appeal is prosecuted. Errors are assigned in the admission of testimony, in the giving of instructions, and in the overruling of a motion for a new trial. Columbus Stevens, Frank Brooks, and William Chapman were called as witnesses on the part of the appellant, and each testified on his direct examination that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness prior to the date of the seduction alleged in the information. The following proceedings occurred on the cross-examination of these witnesses:

First the witness Stevens: 'Q. Do you know a girl by the name of Carrie Graderson? Engaged to be married to her on the 11th? Objected to as being immaterial. Objection overruled by the court, to which ruling the defendant excepts. A. No, sir I was not. Q. Engaged to her? A. I was, yes. Q. Date fixed? A. Not exactly. Q. Wasn't the date fixed for the 11th of July? Mr. Welsh. We object to this class of testimony as being entirely immaterial. Objection overruled by the court, to which defendant excepts. Q. You say the date was not fixed for the marriage? Defendant objects on the grounds that it is immaterial. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. Not exactly. No. Q. What do you mean by 'not exactly?' Defendant objects to the testimony as being immaterial, irrelevant, and not proper cross-examination. Objection overruled by the court, to which defendant excepts. Q. What do you mean by saying that the date was 'not exactly' fixed? Same objection. Same ruling, to which defendant excepts. A. We were engaged to be married, but there hadn't been no exact time. Q. How long had you been at Gile's ranch before Carrie Graderson came over there? A. Something like a month. Q. Came over there to see why you wasn't going to marry her? Defendant objects on grounds that it is immaterial. Objection overruled, and defendant excepts. A. She was wanting to go to California. She wanted to get married before she went down. I wasn't ready yet, and told the girl that I wasn't going to get married yet, and she could go to California. Q. She insisted it had been fixed for the 11th of July? Defendant objects on the grounds that it is immaterial. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. No. Q. She wanted you to marry her? Same objection by defendant. Same ruling. Defendant excepts. A. No. Q. You didn't, and never married her? Same objection by defendant. Same ruling. Defendant excepts. A. No, never have. Q. You went off and left her at Oregon City without saying where you were going? Defendant objects on grounds that it is immaterial. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. A. Yes, sir; I did.'

Second, the witness Brooks: 'Q. Was she the first woman you ever had sexual intercourse with? Mr. Welsh. Objected to as being immaterial. Objection overruled by the court. To which defendant excepts. A. No, sir; it was not. Q. With whom had you had sexual intercourse prior to your having sexual intercourse with Miss Hughes? Objected to as being immaterial and irrelevant. Objection overruled by the court. Defendant excepts. A. Well, I don't know who it was. People of that class do not usually go under their right names. Q. Was there no woman with whom you had sexual intercourse prior to Miss Hughes, whose right name you do know? Mr. Welsh. Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination. The court. He can answer if he has no objection himself, but he does not have to answer unless he wants to. Defendant excepts. No answer. Q. Ever live in Willapa Valley? A. Yes, I have. Q. Have sexual intercourse with a girl living up there? Mr. Welsh. Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination. The court. The objection is overruled. He can use his pleasure about answering. Defendant objects. No answer. Q. Did you have sexual intercourse with a young girl living in Willapa Valley from whom the birth of an illegitimate child resulted at any time prior to this? Mr. Welsh. Same objection. The court. Overruled. Leave it to the witness to answer as he wants to. Defendant excepts. A. No, sir; I never did. Q. Have you ever been charged or is it claimed by any girl living in this county, that she has an illegitimate child of which you are the father? Mr. Welsh. Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination. The court. Overruled. Leave it to the witness to decide whether he wants to answer. Defendant excepts. A. No, sir; there is no girl, not to my knowledge. It is a sad mistake if there is. Q. Is there any girl claiming that you are the father of an illegitimate child, that is not now living? Mr. Welsh. Same objection. Same ruling. Defendant excepts. A. Not to my knowledge. I don't think there is.'

Third, the witness Chapman: 'Q. You say in the summer of 1904 you had intercourse with Miss Hughes. Had you had sexual intercourse with any other girl before that? Objected to as immaterial and improper cross-examination. Objection overruled by the court, to which defendant excepts. A. Yes, I did. Q. Who was it? Objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination. The court. The objection is overruled, but the witness may answer or not as he likes. The defendant excepts. A. I do not care to answer that question. Q. Did you, at any time prior to these acts with Miss Hughes that you have testified to, have sexual intercourse with a girl named [name withheld]. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial, and improper cross-examination. The court. Overruled. Let the witness decide for himself whether he wants to answer that question. A. I do not care to answer that question.'

Courtrooms are bad enough when their proceedings are conducted under proper restrictions, and they should not be made schools for scandal. The extent to which cross-examinations will be permitted is no doubt in a large measure in the discretion of the trial court, and it is difficult to draw the line as to where the legal discretion as to the admission or exclusion of such testimony commences and where it ends but we have no hesitation in saying that sound judicial discretion was abused in this case. Whether one of the witnesses was engaged to another woman, whether the engagement was broken off, and the circumstances surrounding such engagement, were questions wholly foreign to the issues in this case. The relations of the witnesses with other women, and whether one of them had been accused of or was guilty of bastardy falls within the same category. Wharton's Criminal Evidence states the rule thus: 'Every man is entitled to such a measure of oblivion for the past as will protect him from having it ransacked by mere volunteers; and aside from this general sanction, if witnesses were to be compelled to answer fishing questions as to any scandals in their past...