State v. Frost

Decision Date15 April 1925
Docket Number19049.
Citation234 P. 1021,134 Wash. 48
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. FROST.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Lindsley, Judge.

Mattie Frost was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Crandell & Crandell, of Seattle, for appellant.

Chas H. Leary and Frank Funkhouser, both of Spokane, for the State.

MAIN J.

The defendant was charged with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, tried, and found guilty by the jury. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, the appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant was operating a hotel or rooming house. Two police officers went to her place and purchased moonshine whisky. At the same time there was found secreted in the awning over one of the windows in the apartment occupied by the appellant a number of bottles of intoxicating liquor. The appellant was arrested, taken into custody, and subsequently tried, with the result above indicated.

The appellant complains of certain rulings of the trial court during the introduction of the evidence. On cross-examination a witness for the state was asked to make a drawing to indicate where rooms 15 and 18 in the hotel were located, and give a general plan of the other rooms there. This question was objected to, and the objection sustained. Error is sought to be predicated upon the ruling, This court has many times said that the scope of the cross-examination of a particular witness is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the ruling will not be disturbed, in the absence of a showing of abuse of that discretion. There was no abuse here. The answer to the question could not have been of very great importance, and the court was not required to delay while the witness undertook to draw a floor plan of the house.

Another complaint is that the trial court rejected evidence, when no objection had been made by the prosecuting attorney. There was no error in this. It is a function of the trial judge to see that a trial is conducted according to the rules of law, and if he believes that improper questions are being asked, he is entirely within his rights in directing that they be not answered, even though no objection be made. The trial court is more than a mere referee.

It is complained that the trial court commented upon the evidence but this objection is not meritorious. The court, in ruling upon an objection, stated to counsel the reason for such ruling. It has frequently been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 29, 1935
    ...1075, 111 So. 725; People v. Brott, 163 Mich. 150, 128 N.W. 236; People v. Bartley, 12 Cal.App. 773, 108 P. 868, 870; State v. Frost, 134 Wash. 48, 50, 234 P. 1021. To mind it would be as becoming a court to say that a lynching party has become legitimate and legal because the victim, while......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 7, 1935
    ......State,. 34 So. 1025; Bradley v. State, 48 S.E. 981, 121 Ga. 201;. Davis v. State, 70 N.W. 984, 51 Neb. 301; People v. Bartley,. 108 P. 868, 12 Cal.App. 773; People v. Decker, 127 N.Y.S. 1059, 143 A.D. 590, 26 N.Y. Cr. R. 75; State v. Snealy, 107. P. 389, 18 Wyo. 341; State v. Frost, 234 P. 1021, 134 Wash,. 48; People v. Hayek, 220 N.W. 790, 243 Mich. 546; State v. Boloff, 4 P.2d 326; People v. Winchester, 185 N.E. 580, 352. Ill. 237. W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for. the state. . . The. confessions were qualified as having been freely and. ......
  • State v. Gross, 30503.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 22, 1948
    ...124 Wash. 366, 214 P. 841; Allbin v. Seattle, 130 Wash. 342, 227 P. 322; State v. Elder, 130 Wash. 612, 228 P. 1016; State v. Frost, 134 Wash. 48, 234 P. 1021; State v. Simons, 172 Wash. 438, 20 P.2d State v. Brown, 19 Wash.2d 195, 142 P.2d 257; Dennis v. McArthur, 23 Wash.2d 33, 158 P.2d 6......
  • State v. Crenshaw
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • September 29, 1980
    ...The trial court did not err by rejecting evidence even though no objection had been made by the prosecuting attorney. State v. Frost, 134 Wash. 48, 234 P. 1021 (1925). This evidence was merely cumulative, and the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding it. State v. Freeman, 17 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT