State v. King
| Decision Date | 12 September 1908 |
| Parties | STATE v. KING. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Miles Poindexter, Judge.
Dave King was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Del Cary Smith and L. J. Birdseye, for appellant.
R. M Barnhart and George A. Lee, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of obtaining money by false and fraudulent representation. He appeals from the judgment sentencing him to an indefinite term in the penitentiary.
After the state had closed its evidence, the court directed counsel for the defense to state his defense to the jury, whereupon counsel for the defendant said, --when the court said: Whereupon counsel, after saving an exception, stated in substance that the defense would be an alibi. The statute, in reference to the manner of conducting jury trials, provides Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. § 4993 (Pierce's Code, § 607). The inference here is clear that the defendant has no option after the close of plaintiff's testimony. It was not error, therefore, for the court to direct the statement. It is perhaps true that this statute is directory, and that the court and counsel may waive the provisions thereof; but certainly no prejudicial error is apparent from the fact that the court required the counsel to state what his defense would be. 'Neither party has the right to take the other by surprise by reserving the disclosure of material facts or points of law until it is too late for them to be duly weighed and examined.' Wharton's Criminal Proceeding and Practice (8th Ed.) p. 382. It is also claimed that the statement of the court that 'the nature of the case is such that I think the jury ought to know how you intend to meet the state's case' was a comment upon the facts. We think this is not such a comment as will alone justify a reversal. In his instructions to the jury the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. State
...Cooper, 114 Utah 531, 201 P.2d 764, 769(9) (importance of time issue where there is danger of double jeopardy).Washington: State v. King, 50 Wash. 312, 97 P. 247(6); State v. Coffelt, 33 Wash.2d 106, 204 P.2d 521(2); State v. Brown, 35 Wash.2d 379, 213 P.2d 304(1, 2); State v. Pitts, 62 Was......
-
State v. Whittemore
...751, 133 S.E. 14; State v. Harbert, 185 N.C. 760, 118 S.E. 6; State v. Wilkerson, 164 N.C. 431, 79 S.E. 888. In State v. King, 50 Wash. 312, 97 P. 247, 248, 16 Ann.Cas. 322, defendant was charged with obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses. His defense was alibi. The trial court,......
-
State v. Waid
... ... Hanna , ... 81 Utah 583, 21 P.2d 537. Some courts have held that, where ... the defense of alibi is interposed, the time of the ... commission of the offense becomes so material that it is ... prejudicial error to instruct the jury that the time is not ... material. See State v. King , 50 Wash. 312, ... 97 P. 247, 16 Ann. Cas. 322; State v. Moss , ... 73 Wash. 430, 131 P. 1132; State v. Morden , ... 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; State v. Abbott , ... 65 Kan. 139, 69 P. 160 ... This ... question, however, was before this court in the case of ... State v ... ...
-
People v. Suter
...) (plain error to instruct jury it could find rape "occurred 'on or about' " date for which defendant had an alibi); State v. King, 50 Wash. 312, 315, 97 P. 247, 248 (1908) (reversible error to instruct jury time of offense We hold that it was error to give IPI Criminal 3d No. 3.01 under th......