State v. Hazzard
Decision Date | 08 December 1913 |
Citation | 137 P. 143,76 Wash. 586 |
Parties | STATE v. HAZZARD. |
Court | Washington 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 & Gregory and J. H. Buchanan, all of Seattle, for appellant.
Thomas Stevenson, of Bremerton, for respondent.
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:
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-
Nostrand v. Little, 34451
...... 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
......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
...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
...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......