State v. Chambers, 33683
| Decision Date | 18 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 33683,33683 |
| Citation | 309 P.2d 1055,50 Wn.2d 139 |
| Parties | , 62 A.L.R.2d 1080 The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Willard A. CHAMBERS, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joseph TURNER, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Ray Howerd CHAMBERS, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Edward CHAMBERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Wm. M. Hamilton, Jr., East Wenatchee, for Willard A. Chambers and Joseph Turner.
Lowell D. Sperline, East Wenatchee, for Ray Howard Chambers and Edward Chambers.
Charles W. Cone, James C. Lynch, Wenatchee, for respondent.
The four defendants were charged in separate informations with the crime of rape. The cases, being connected, were consolidated for trial and, after the convictions of all four of the defendants, were consolidated again upon appeal.
The prosecutrix was a married woman with a baby about ten months old, whose husband had abandoned her in April, 1954. The four appellants drove to her home shortly after noon on September 17, 1955. There was some talk of going to the Waterville Fair. The prosecutrix took her baby and the party drove to her sister's house in Cashmere. No one was home. The prosecutrix changed from pedal-pushers into a dress, and they proceeded to her parents' home, also in Cashmere. The parents were not home either, so they took the baby with them to Dryden. After buying some beer to take out, they drove to Leavenworth and up the Chumstick Valley to the home of some friends of the prosecutrix, who declined appellants' invitation to go with them. From there, they drove further up the valley and down a logging road about one-half mile, where the car was stopped, and all four appellants carnally knew the prosecutrix. They then returned to Leavenworth and purchased bread and lunch meat for sandwiches and milk for the baby. They parked on a public street, ate sandwiches and fed the baby, then proceeded to a drug store and cafe on Main street where the prosecutrix talked to a casual passerby known to the appellants while two of them went to a nearby tavern. Later, the party started back to Wenatchee, and two of the appellants again carnally knew the prosecutrix in the back seat of the car. Thereafter, they turned off the main highway onto a county road. During an exchange of seats by the appellants, the car was stopped and the prosecutrix got out. The appellants were urging her to return to the car when deputy sheriffs, patroling the county road, approached. Appellant Turner ran into an orchard. The officers questioned the prosecutrix and the remaining appellants and took them to the county jail.
The appellants assign as error the admission, over their objections, of the testimony of Dr. F. E. Kells that he examined the prosecutrix seven weeks after the alleged commission of the crime, and that she was pregnant. This evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The appellants were not charged with carnal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barreto
... ... statute that the State bore the burden of proving an alleged ... rape victim's lack of consent. State v ... Chambers, 50 Wn.2d 139, 140, 309 P.2d 1055 (1957); ... State v. Thomas, 9 Wn. App. 160, 163, 510 P.2d 1137 ... (1973). Courts often shortened ... ...
-
State v. Barreto
...well settled under this statute that the State bore the burden of proving an alleged rape victim's lack of consent. State v. Chambers, 50 Wn.2d 139, 140, 309 P.2d 1055 (1957); State v. Thomas, 9 Wn. App. 160, 163, 510 P.2d 1137 (1973). Courts often shortened the statutory phrase "without th......
-
State v. Watson
...not tend to prove the commission of a crime or to establish paternity. Evidence regarding it was prejudicial. State v. Chambers, 50 Wash.2d 139, 309 P.2d 1055, 1057 (1957). In that case, the conviction was While the testimony here was improper, and may well have been prejudicial, a reversal......
-
State v. Camara
...under this statute that the State bore the burden of proving an alleged rape victim's lack of consent. State v. Chambers, 50 Wash.2d 139, 140, 309 P.2d 1055, 62 A.L.R.2d 1080 (1957); State v. Thomas, 9 Wash.App. 160, 510 P.2d 1137, review denied, 82 Wash.2d 1012 When the criminal law was re......