State v. Eder
| Citation | 78 P. 1023,36 Wash. 482 |
| Parties | STATE v. EDER. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1904 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; William E. Richardson Judge.
Sam Eder was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Reversed.
Del Cary Smith and A. J. Laughon, for appellant.
Horace Kimball and R. M. Barnhart, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to a term of 10 years in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment of conviction and sentence he appeals to this court.
The crime charged in the information was committed on the 4th day of April, 1903. After the state had closed its case the appellant called as a witness one Florence Eder, who testified, in answer to questions put to her by counsel, that she was the wife of the appellant, and that the appellant was with her at Little Spokane, some 18 miles from the scene of the robbery, from the evening of the 2d to the morning of the 5th or 6th of April, where he had been summoned at what was supposed to be the deathbed of his father. On cross-examination the state was permitted to show by the witness that the appellant had been confined for another crime in the State Penitentiary some five or six years prior to the time of the crime charged in the information. This action of the court constitutes the first error assigned.
The state concedes that to admit evidence of a separate and distinct crime from that charged in the information is in general reversible error, but they seek to justify its admission in this instance on the principle that the evidence tended to impeach the witness, and contend that impeaching evidence is permissible even though it does tend to connect the defendant with another and distinct crime. But without determining whether this contention would be true in any case, we are clear that it has no application here. The first question asked the witness on cross-examination was 'When were you married to this defendant?' To which the witness answered, 'I don't remember exactly--about 1898;' while the fact was, as she testified subsequently, she was married in 1899. It was to correct this inadvertence on her part that the state was permitted to show by her that the defendant was confined in the State Penitentiary in 1898; the argument being that, if he was so confined, she could not have lawfully married him at the time stated. But this did not justify a departure from the rule. In all the appellate courts at the present day evidence that the defendant has been guilty of a separate and distinct crime from that for which he is being tried, when offered for the purpose of aiding the conviction of the defendant, is held inadmissible, and reversible error when admitted over proper objection. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conway
...other crime; for this, under the pretense of justice, would be a wanton prejudice to the defendant." In the case of State v. Eder, 36 Wash. 482, 78 Pac. 1023, the court had before it a question similar to the one now under consideration. In that case the wife of a defendant on trial, testif......
-
State v. Myers
...126 Cal. 351, 58 P. 814; State v. Marshall, 2 Kan. App. 792, 44 P. 49; 1 Wharton, Crim. Ev., 10th ed., p. 59; 16 C. J. 587; State v. Eder, 36 Wash. 482, 78 P. 1023.) Roy Black, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant, for Respondent. The proceeding for the recovery of an exhibit is ......
-
State v. Conway
...other crime; for this, under the pretense of justice, would be a wanton prejudice to the defendant." In the case of State v. Eder, 36 Wash. 482, 78 P. 1023, court had before it a question similar to the one now under consideration. In that case the wife of a defendant on trial, testifying a......
-
State v. McKeever
...v. Whitner, 46 S.W.2d 581; People v. Minney, 155 Mich. 534; Gardner v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. Rep. 400; People v. Gruntz, 212 N.Y. 72; State v. Eader, 36 Wash. 482; Gaugh Commonwealth, 87 S.W.2d 97. Evidence of the commission of a crime, other than the one charged, is admissible when a defendan......