State v. Kinghorn
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | GOSE, J. [56 Wash. 134] FULLERTON, J. |
| Citation | 56 Wash. 131,105 P. 234 |
| Parties | STATE v. KINGHORN. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1909 |
105 P. 234
56 Wash. 131
STATE
v.
KINGHORN.
Supreme Court of Washington
December 1, 1909
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black, Judge.
Cliff Kinghorn was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Reversed, with directions. [105 P. 235.]
E. C. Dailey, for appellant.
GOSE, J.
The appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced upon an information charging him with having committed statutory rape. After the jury had been impaneled and sworn to try the case, and the state had sworn the prosecutrix as a witness, and had commenced interrogating her, the appellant objected to the introduction of any further evidence, and moved to dismiss the case because he had not been arraigned, and had not pleaded to the information. The motion having been denied, the appellant was arraigned under the order of the court, and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereupon, on the motion of the state, the jury was discharged, and an exception reserved by the appellant. Another jury was thereupon impaneled and sworn to try the [56 Wash. 132] case. The appeal is prosecuted from a judgment entered upon the verdict of the latter jury.
After the second jury had been impaneled and sworn, the appellant entered a further plea of former jeopardy. The Constitution (article 1, § 9) provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. The appellant contends that the judgment violates this provision of our Constitution. There is a division of authority on the question as to when the period of jeopardy begins, but we think the better rule, and the one supported by the decided weight of authority, is that, when the accused has been placed upon trial in a court of competent jurisdiction on a sufficient indictment, before a jury legally impaneled and sworn, the constitutional peril has attached, and that a discharge of the jury without good cause, and without the consent of the accused, is equivalent to an acquittal. 'While there is no jury set apart and sworn for the case, the defendant has not been conducted to his jeopardy. But when, according to the better opinion, the jury is full, sworn, and added to the other branch of the court, and all the preliminary things of record are ready for the trial, the prisoner has reached the jeopardy from the repetition of which our constitutional guaranty protects him.' 1 Bishop's New Crim. Law, § 1015. 'Though the jury has been impaneled and sworn, there is still no jeopardy,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brunn, 29263.
...began many years ago. In its first stages, the movement was devoted to an attack on the rule applied by this court in State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 235, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 136. In that case, the defendant was charged with rape. A jury was impaneled and sworn. The prosecuting wit......
-
State v. Connors, 35635
...the possibility of an exercise of reasonable discretion in the matter by the trial court. In the case of State v. Kinghorn (1909), 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 136, a jury was impaneled and sworn and the prosecuting witness called to the stand. After preliminary questions were......
-
State v. George, 12337.
...and sworn, and that a discharge of the jury without due cause and without consent of the accused is an acquittal. State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136, can have no application under the plain words and terms of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2113, which provides: 'A con......
-
State v. Nilnch, 18723.
...already been said by this court in State v. Straub, 16 Wash. 111, 47 P. 227; State v. Sexton, 37 Wash. 110, 79 P. 634; State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136, and State v. Garland, 65 Wash. 666, 118 P. 907, is sufficient answer to appellant's argument, and furt......
-
State v. Brunn, 29263.
...began many years ago. In its first stages, the movement was devoted to an attack on the rule applied by this court in State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 235, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 136. In that case, the defendant was charged with rape. A jury was impaneled and sworn. The prosecuting wit......
-
State v. Connors, 35635
...the possibility of an exercise of reasonable discretion in the matter by the trial court. In the case of State v. Kinghorn (1909), 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 136, a jury was impaneled and sworn and the prosecuting witness called to the stand. After preliminary questions were......
-
State v. George, 12337.
...and sworn, and that a discharge of the jury without due cause and without consent of the accused is an acquittal. State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136, can have no application under the plain words and terms of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2113, which provides: 'A con......
-
State v. Nilnch, 18723.
...already been said by this court in State v. Straub, 16 Wash. 111, 47 P. 227; State v. Sexton, 37 Wash. 110, 79 P. 634; State v. Kinghorn, 56 Wash. 131, 105 P. 234, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136, and State v. Garland, 65 Wash. 666, 118 P. 907, is sufficient answer to appellant's argument, and furt......