State v. Brodie
| Decision Date | 22 December 1893 |
| Citation | 35 P. 137,7 Wash. 442 |
| Parties | STATE v. BRODIE ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Skagit county; Henry McBride, Judge.
Edmund Brodie and Thomas Andrews were informed against for grand larceny, and, not being brought to trial within 60 days after the information was filed, they petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and moved for a discharge. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, and denying the motion for discharge, they appeal. Reversed.
H. D Allison, for appellants.
Geo. A Joiner, Pros. Atty., for the State.
On the 11th day of September, 1893, the defendants were arrested on a charge of grand larceny, and were, by a justice of the peace of Skagit county, upon an examination held by him on the 13th day of September, bound over to the next term of the superior court for trial. On the 18th day of said month the prosecuting attorney of said county filed an information against them, accusing them of said crime. Said defendants were unable at all times to give bonds, and since said 13th day of September have been confined in the county jail of said county. Not having been brought to trial on said charge and more than 60 days having elapsed since said information was filed against them, they petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain their discharge. The petition sets up the facts above stated, and that the trial had not been postponed upon their application, and that they had not caused the delay thereof, but that they had at all times been ready and willing for trial upon the charge aforesaid; that a jury term of the superior court for said county should have been held on the fourth Monday of September, and that another jury term of said court should have been held the first Monday of December in said year; that both of said times had passed since they had been informed against, and that no such jury had been called, and that no cause for delay or failure to call the same had been filed or placed of record; but that the court had postponed the calling of such jury from time to time without any sufficient cause therefor having been shown; and they also moved for a discharge under 2 Hill's Code, § 1369. [1] The prosecuting attorney of said county demurred to the petition of the defendants, and on the 7th day of December, 1893, the same coming on for hearing, the court sustained said demurrer, and denied the motion of the defendants for a discharge, whereupon the defendants appealed.
The order denying the motion recites, substantially, that the prosecuting attorney had not, in behalf of the state, asked for any continuance of said action, but had always been ready for trial, but that said cause had not been tried for the reason that no term of court, for which a jury had been called, had been in session in said county since the filing of the information. As the record stands, we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause appears for not having brought the defendants to trial, and, in the absence of such cause, they were entitled to their discharge under said sect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Douglas County v. Washington Water Power Co.
... ... verdict and appropriations, were first considered by this ... court in State ex rel. Donofrio v. Humes, 34 Wash ... 347, 75 P. 348. That was an action in mandamus to compel[20 ... Wn.2d 386] the city of Seattle ... earlier cases without reference to them by title. As an ... example, see State v. Brodie, 7 Wash. 442, 35 P ... 137; State v. Lewis, 35 Wash. 261, 77 P. 198; ... State v. Vukich, 158 Wash. 362, 290 P. 992 ... ...
-
State v. Thompson
...court and there are numerous decisions interpreting Rem.Rev.Stat. Sec. 2312. A partial list of the decisions is as follows: State v. Brodie, 7 Wash. 442, 35 P. 137; State v. Lewis, 35 Wash. 261, 77 P. 198; State v. Seright, 48 Wash. 307, 93 P. 521; State v. Parmeter, 49 Wash. 435, 95 P. 101......
-
Gallimore v. State
...a jury does not constitute good cause for failing to bring the cause to trial. State v. Carrillo, 41 Ariz. 170, 16 P.2d 965; State v. Brodie, 7 Wash. 442, 35 P. 137. In Newlin v. People, 221 Ill. 166, 77 N.E. 529, 530 construing a statute somewhat similar to ours, it is 'By the section of t......
-
Heard v. Clark
... ... 828; 85 A. S. R. 178; Ex parte Turman, 26 ... Tex. 708, 84 Am. Dec. 598; 16 C. J., pages 190-196; In re ... Lourdan, 54 Kan. 496, 38 P. 556; State v ... Miller, 43 Neb. 860, 62 N.W. 238; State v ... Brodie, 7 Wash. 442, 35 P. 137; State v. Kuhn, ... 154 Ind. 450, 57 N.E. 106; Nixon v ... ...