State v. Le Fors
| Decision Date | 10 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 16196. |
| Parties | STATE v. LE FORS. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Whitman County; Joseph Sessions, Judge.
Jesse Le Fors was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
O. H. Horton, of Colfax, for appellant.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of sodomy, and has appealed to this court. Immediately upon the jury being sworn to try the case and before the taking of any testimony, the jury was permitted to separate during a recess without the consent of the appellant. The record shows the members of the jury were allowed to commingle with the audience, and that they retired from the courtroom. Prior to the taking of any testimony counsel for the appellant called the court's attention to the separation of the jury without the consent of the defendant and objected to further proceeding with the trial. The objection was overruled, and the trial proceeded.
Section 2159, Rem. Code, provides:
'Juries in criminal cases shall not be allowed to separate, except by consent of the defendant and the prosecuting attorney, but shall be kept together, without meat or drink, unless otherwise ordered by the court, to be furnished at the expense of the county.'
We have held in the cases of State v. Place, 5 Wash. 773, 32 P. 736, State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 [115 Wash. 22] P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012, State v. Bennett, 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409, and State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832, that the statute in no way relates to the discretion of the trial court, that its terms are mandatory, and that a violation of its express prohibition constitutes reversible error. Upon the authority of the statute and the cases cited, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powers
...83 P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012; State v. Bennett, 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; State v. Le Fors, 115 Wash. 21, 195 P. 1041; State v. Rasmussen, 125 Wash. 176, 215 P. In others, again, where there was some apparent necessity for the separation, and th......
-
State v. Navone, 24468.
...... contends that these circumstances require the granting of a. new trial, citing State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159,. 83 P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012; State v. Bennett,. 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; and State v. Le Fors, 115 Wash. 21,. 195 P. 1041. . . During. recent years the strict rule as to the necessity for the jury. remaining absolutely together at all times has been somewhat. relaxed. State v. Harris, 99 Wash. 475, 169 P. 971,. L. R. A. 1918C, 318, State ......
-
State v. Rasmussen
...83 P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012; State v. Bennett, 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; State v. LeFors, 115 Wash. 21, 195 P. 1041. Some our comparatively recent decisions announce a somewhat liberal view as to what constitutes a substantial separation within......