State v. Kelly
| Citation | 14 Wash. 702,45 P. 38 |
| Parties | STATE v. KELLY. |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1896 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; Norman Buck, Judge.
James D. Kelly was convicted of the crime of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.
Fenton & Saunders, for appellant.
J. W. Feighan, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny, and has appealed to this court. The only point relied upon for reversal is that the court allowed the prosecuting attorney, after the jury had been sworn, to indorse upon the information the names of two witnesses for the state, who were thereafter permitted to testify in the cause. This point has been expressly passed upon by this court in State v. Bokien (decided April 13, 1896) 44 P. 889, contrary to the contention of the appellant; the opinion therein having been filed since this appeal was taken. As we are satisfied with that holding, and as it does not appear that the discretion of the court was improperly exercised in this instance, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Van Waters
...Doon, 7 Wash. 308, 34 P. 1103; State v. John Port Townsend, 7 Wash. 462, 35 P. 367; State v. Bokien, 14 Wash. 403, 44 P. 889; State v. Kelly, 14 Wash. 702, 45 P. 38; State Holedger, 15 Wash. 443, 46 P. 652; State v. Lewis, 31 Wash. 515, 72 P. 121. It appears that one Patchen, at some time p......
-
State v. Le Pitre
......32, was quoted; the court adopting its. reasoning. It is unnecessary to reproduece the quotation. here. Suffice it to say that it sustains the principle so. often announced by this court that such order of itself does. not constitute reversible error. State v. Kelly, 14. Wash. 702, 45 P. 38; State v. Lewis, 31 Wash. 515,. 72 P. 121; State v. Sexton, 37 Wash. 110, 79 P. 634;. State v. Van Waters, 36 Wash. 358, 78 P. 897. . . The. habitual criminal statute is a thing of modern creation, and,. while there are ......