State v. Hawkins

• Decision Date: 18 February 1902
• Citation: 27 Wash. 375,67 P. 814
• Parties: STATE v. HAWKINS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

67 P. 814

27 Wash. 375

STATE v. HAWKINS.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 18, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.

Alfred Hawkins(informed against as Alfred Hamilton) was convicted of crime, and appeals.Affirmed.

John B. Wright and R. H. Lindsay, for appellant.

M. P Hurd, Henry McBride, and A. E. Meade, for the State.

DUNBAR J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and judgment and sentence of execution were pronounced.From such judgment appeal is taken to this court.The first assignment of error is that the court erred in permitting Hon. Henry McBride, the lieutenant governor of this state, to appear and prosecute said defendant.This assignment is based upon the fact that the law creates the governor of this state a court of mercy in which is vested the pardoning power and the right to commute the death sentence; that under the law the party appealing for pardon or commutation has a right to appeal to an impartial tribunal; and that a prosecuting officer cannot be such an impartial tribunal.But without passing upon the question of whether or not in ordinary circumstances the law places any inhibition upon the right of the lieutenant governor to appear in the prosecution of a person accused of an offense against the laws of the state, in this instance it appears from the record that Henry McBride to whom the objection is directed, and who assisted in prosecuting the appellant, had been associated with the prosecuting attorney of Skagit county in the prosecution of this cause and this appellant prior to the time that he was elected lieutenant governor of the state, this having been the second trial for this offense to which the appellant was subjected, and the judgment following the first trial having been reversed by order of this court on appeal.So that, if an acquaintance with the facts of the case arising from prosecution of it would tend to influence a lieutenant governor who under the law was liable to become an acting governor, that information had already been furnished in this case.Practically, therefore, there is no merit in the assignment.

The second contention is that the court erred in sustaining the objection of the prosecution to the following question 'In what condition did you find Hamilton in the jail when you went in after him?'Witness had testified to the condition of Hamilton, the defendant, as to being...