State v. Hazzard

Decision Date08 December 1913
Citation137 P. 143,76 Wash. 586
PartiesSTATE v. HAZZARD.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1. On motion for an additional order to amend the record so that it will appear that the court considered and overruled a constitutional question raised by accused so as to sustain an application for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. Denied.

Karr &amp Gregory and J. H. Buchanan, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Thomas Stevenson, of Bremerton, for respondent.

CROW C.J.

Appellant being charged with murder in the first degree, was convicted of manslaughter, and the judgment of the superior court of Kitsap county was affirmed by this court. State v Hazzard, 134 P. 514. Thereafter a petition for rehearing was filed, in which appellant for the first time contended that the method of prosecution adopted by the state, and permitted by the trial court, and the instructions of the trial judge, constituted an infringement of appellant's rights and privileges, guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and that sections 2167, 2168, and 2263 of Rem & Bal. Code, if given the construction which the rulings and instructions of the trial court by necessary implication placed upon them, are obnoxious to, and an infringement of, such constitutional guaranties. This petition was denied without an opinion, and appellant, desiring to obtain a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, now presents to this court a motion reading as follows: 'Comes now the above-named appellant and defendant and moves the court for an order or other proper action or direction to make the record in this cause and court show the fact that this court considered and passed upon adversely the contention made by this appellant and defendant in her petition for rehearing (page 59 of the printed petition); that the method of prosecution adopted by the state and permitted by the trial court, and the charge to the jury given by the trial court, constituted an infringement of the rights and privileges guaranteed to this defendant by the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the United States; and that sections 2167, 2168, and 2263 of Rem. & Bal. Code of the laws of the state of Washington are obnoxious to said constitutional guaranty. This motion is made upon the assumption that this court did consider and pass adversely upon said contention. If this court did not consider or pass upon said contention, then defendant respectfully moves for an order making the record show that fact.'

The record shows that the contention set forth in the petition for rehearing, and mentioned in the motion, was neither made in the trial court nor in the briefs in this court. It was first presented in the petition for rehearing, substantially as above stated. Citing Sullivan v. Texas, 207 U.S 416, 28 S.Ct. 215, 52 L.Ed. 274, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nostrand v. Little, 34451
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 20 Abril 1961
    ......         2. If such claim is properly before this court, whether the pertinent statutes of the state of Washington do or do not afford them such a hearing; and .         3. If said statutes do not afford them such a hearing, whether ... State v. Hazzard, 1913, 76 Wash. 586, 137 P. 143, and cases cited therein. .         [361 P.2d 557] Were it not for the fact that this case has been remanded ......
  • Lake v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 29 Julio 1930
    ......619, 118 N.E. 196; State v. Jones, 64 Iowa, 349, 17 N.W. 911, 20 N.W. 470; Drake. v. State, 29 Tex.App. 265, 15 S.W. 725; Powers v. Commonwealth, 114 Ky. 237, 70 S.W. 644, 1050, 71 S.W. 494; State v. Gee Jon, 46 Nev. 418, 211 P. 676, 217. P. 587, 30 A. L. R. 1443; State v. Hazzard, 76 Wash. 586, 137 P. 143; Ross v. State, 16 Wyo. 285, 93 P. 299, 94 P. 217; People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 618, 19. P. 865, 20 P. 129. In Lovett v. State, supra, it was held. that this court does not lose jurisdiction of a cause after. the mandate is transmitted to and filed by the lower court. ......
  • State v. Butner, 3545
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 6 Julio 1950
    ...holding that a second petition for a rehearing will not be entertained in civil cases controls in criminal cases as well. State v. Hazzard, 76 Wash. 586, 137 P. 143; Ross v. State, 16 Wyo. 285, 93 P. 299, 94 P. 217; People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 618, 19 P. 865, 20 P. 129.'2 The general rule ap......
  • State v. Tellez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 19 Julio 2016
    ...issue only "as a matter of comity," because the United States Supreme Court had asked that it do so. Id. Nostrand cited State v. Hazzard, 76 Wash. 586, 137 P. 143 (1913) and cases cited therein for this longstanding rule. 58 Wn.2d at 120. Among the cases cited by Hazzard is State ex rel. Mi......
  • 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