State v. Ilomaki

• Decision Date: 08 December 1905
• Citation: 82 P. 873,40 Wash. 629
• Parties: STATE v. ILOMAKI.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

82 P. 873

40 Wash. 629

STATE v. ILOMAKI.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 8, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Mason Irwin, Judge.

Anton Michael Ilomaki was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Agnew & Israel, for appellant.

E. E Boner, for the State.

MOUNT C.J.

Appellant was convicted, under Laws 1903, p. 230, c. 123, § 1, of the crime of placing and leaving his wife in a house of prostitution, knowing the house to be such. He appeals from a judgment on a verdict of conviction, and alleges error of the trial court, first, in overruling a demurrer to the information. The information charges that 'the said Anton Michael Ilomaki, on the 29th day of March, 1905 in the county of Chehalis, in the state aforesaid, then and there being the husband of one Sofia Ilomaki, did then and there unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously connive at and consent to the placing and leaving of his said wife, Sofia Ilomaki, in a house of prostitution, and then and there give his full consent, and, knowing said house to be a house of prostitution, did willfully and feloniously allow and permit his said wife, Sofia Ilomaki, to remain therein; said house of prostitution being known and designated as No. 411 East Hume street.' It is claimed that this information is bad for duplicity, under section 6844, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., because it charges that the appellant consented to the placing of his wife in a house of prostitution, and also that he allowed and permitted her to remain in such house. But it will be seen by an examination of the statute that it enumerates a series of acts any one or all of which may constitute a crime. In such case it is held that all of such acts may be charged in a single count because, while each act alone may constitute an offense, all of them together do no more than constitute one and the same offense. State v. Newton, 29 Wash. 373, 70 P. 31. Under this rule, it was not error to overrule the demurrer.

2. At the beginning of the trial all the witnesses were sworn, and an order was made excluding them from the courtroom during the progress of the trial. Three witnesses for the state took seats within the courtroom for some reason not shown, and remained during a part of the examination of the prosecuting witness. They were thereupon noticed, and required to depart. When these witnesses were afterwards called to the stand, counsel for appellant objected to their testimony being received, because they had disobeyed the order of the court. There was no showing nor attempt to show any collusion with the witnesses or any fault on the part of the prosecution. The court denied the objection and received the evidence of these witnesses. This ruling is assigned as error. Under the rule, in State v. Lee Doon, 7 Wash. 308, 34 P. 1103, there was no error in receiving the evidence of these witnesses.

3. Appellant alleges that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that they must not consider evidence which the court had stricken out of the case. The record does not disclose that any such instruction was requested and refused. Furthermore, the assignment of error upon this point refers to certain pages of the statement of facts. These references only show that objections were sustained to certain questions. They do not show that any evidence improperly admitted was stricken out. The argument in the brief upon this point is general, and fails to point out any specific evidence which may have been improperly considered by the jury, or any specific evidence which was stricken where the court failed to instruct the jury not to consider it. The duty...