State v. Day
| Decision Date | 22 March 1892 |
| Citation | 22 Or. 160,29 P. 352 |
| Parties | STATE v. DAY. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; LOYAL B. STEARNES Judge.
Indictment against Chung Foo and Joe Day for assaulting Sue Bing with a dangerous weapon. On a separate trial Day was convicted, and from a judgment thereon appeals. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by STRAHAN, C.J.:
The defendant was jointly indicted with one Chung Foo for being armed with a dangerous weapon, and assaulting Sue Bing therewith, and upon a separate trial was convicted, from which judgment of conviction this appeal was taken. Upon the trial in the court below the defendant sought to impeach the prosecuting witness, Sue Bing, by making it appear that, upon a preliminary examination, had in the police court of the city of Portland, he testified that he did not know who it was that shot him, but that he had been informed that he was shot by Joe Day and Chung Foo. For that purpose defendant's counsel asked Sue Bing, on his cross-examination, a number of times if he did not so testify in the police court. He remained silent, failing to answer either of said questions. The court then repeated said questions to the witness several times, with the same result. The record then recites: "Here the district attorney admitted that the complaining witness, Sue Bing, did so testify in the police court." After some further questions, the court propounded this question to the witness To which the witness answered: The court then repeated the question substantially, but, failing to elicit an answer, he remarked to counsel: "You will have to ask the witness so he can understand your question." The district attorney then observed the reason he did not testify in the police court was because he was afraid they would kill him, to which defendant's counsel objected, but did not take the ruling of the court upon the propriety of the district attorney's statement of the fact, nor was the same withdrawn. The witness continued: This part of the examination does not appear to have been objected to. Ju Guy, a witness for the defendant, testified that he was present in the police court, and heard Sue Bing testify. Among other things he said he did not know who shot him. He did not know Chung Foo or Joe Day shot him. He said he never saw these two men. The defense also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rader
...and unauthorized by him in attempting to influence the witness to leave the country so as to avoid testifying in the case. In State v. Day, 22 Or. 160, 29 P. 352, was held that: "Before evidence can be received against a defendant in a criminal prosecution of attempts to bribe or intimidate......
-
Washington v. State
...L.Ed.2d 379 (1976); People v. Bloom, 370 Ill. 144, 18 N.E.2d 197 (1938); State v. Caliendo, 136 Me. 169, 4 A.2d 837 (1939); State v. Day, 22 Or. 160, 29 P. 352 (1892).2 The defendant argues that Hollie's receiving word of the incident from another source destroys the effect of independent c......
-
State v. Jackson
...in a criminal proceeding unless shown to have been authorized by him. State v. Rader, 1919, 94 Or. 432, 186 P. 79; State v. Day, 1892, 22 Or. 160, 29 P. 352. The fact that it is the defendant's attorney who makes the admission does not obviate the necessity of connecting it. An attorney has......
-
State v. Oland
...he was worried about the defendant. When asked why, he said, 'I'm just worried about him.' Defense argues that under State of Oregon v. Day, 22 Or. 160, 29 P. 352 (1892), it was error to permit Milam to so testify in the absence of evidence that the defendant had given Milam cause to be wor......