State v. Lindsey
| Decision Date | 24 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | 18492. |
| Citation | 133 Wash. 140,233 P. 327 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LINDSEY. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Gilbert, Judge.
Walter T. Lindsey was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Snively & Bounds, of Yakima, for appellant.
Sidney Livesey and M. C. Delle, both of Yakima, for the State.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and has appealed from a judgment on the verdict.
There can be no question, indeed none is presented, that there was abundant evidence to justify the verdict.
Several assignments of error are presented upon the alleged prejudicial conduct of the deputy prosecuting attorney in the trial of the case which it is claimed calls for a reversal. They refer to three questions asked on the cross-examination of Mrs. Keck while testifying on behalf of the appellant and a statement made by the attorney in his closing argument to the jury. It is claimed that the three questions immediately following each other were of similar import, that they were unfair, and were asked for the purpose of prejudicing the jury against the appellant. It may be stated that there is some question under authorities called to our attention, but that the questions were proper, but it is not necessary, nor do we decide that they were proper. As the incident occurred the witness was asked a question to which an objection was sustained. Counsel for the state then stated that the purpose of the question was impeachment, but the court ruled against him. Thereupon another question was asked similar to the first, but more specific and including additional matter. An objection was sustained, and the court of its own motion instructed the jury to disregard the question and ordered counsel not to repeat it. Thereafter one or more questions and answers intervening, the witness was asked the third question complained of which sought to ascertain the witness' knowledge of the defendant's engaging in the manufacturing of intoxicating liquor--a different kind of question from the other two. An objection to it was sustained, and the court of its own motion again instructed the jury to disregard the question. Not one of the questions was answered. We are satisfied there was no error. State v. Franklin, 124 Wash. 620, 215 P. 29, and cases cited therein; State v. Pickel, 116 Wash. 600, 200 P. 316, 204 P. 184.
The statement made in the closing argument to the jury that is assigned as error was:
'There was only one man that said he knew these men (the two officers who made the arrest) for years, and Mr. Bounds excused him from the jury.'
Clearly the statement referred to a matter that the jury already knew of, but, aside from that, the statement was objected to, and upon being sustained, the court instructed the jury to disregard it. 'It will be presumed that they heeded the admonitions of the court.' Calhoun v. Portland Railway, L. & P. Co., 105 Wash. 592, 178 P. 805.
Considerable complaint is made on 'the question of the conduct or rather misconduct of those attending the trial of the case as spectators.' In short, the argument is that those who socially and by organized efforts were in sympathy with the cause of the state flocked to the courtroom and made themselves so prominent as to interfere with the rights of the appellant and prevent him from having a fair trial. There were affidavits filed in support of the motion for a new trial that referred to the number and attendance of such persons. But in this respect the situation was not one-sided. On the contrary, there were affidavits filed showing that there were in constant attendance as many or more spectators who were acknowledged partisans on the other side of the case. It appears from a written opinion of the court in denying the motion for a new trial, made a part of the record by stipulation of counsel, that the partisans against the cause of the state, some of whom had cases docketed for trial at the same jury term, present in the audience outnumbered those of contrary views. The opinion further states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shale
...Washington State did assert jurisdiction over some crimes committed on tribal land involving only non-Indians. State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 144, 233 P. 327 (1925) (citing State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15(1895) ).¶ 7 The formal relationship between the states and the tribal nati......
-
Rice v. Rehner, 82-401
...art. 1, § 7 (prohibition removed in 1959). 10 See, e.g., State v. Rorvick, 76 Idaho 58, 277 P.2d 566 (1954); State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 233 P. 327 (1925); Dagan v. State, 162 Wis. 353, 156 N.W. 153 (1916); State v. Justice, 44 Utah 484, 141 P. 109 (1914); State v. Mamlock, 58 Wash. 63......
-
Ray v. Martin
...104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869;State v. Monroe, 83 Mont. 556, 274 P. 840; People v. Pratt, 26 Cal. App.2d 618, 80 P.2d 87;State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 233 P. 327;State v. Adams, 213 N.C. 243, 195 S.E. 822;United States v. Partello, C.C., 48 F. 670. To allocate jurisdiction over such crimes ......
-
State v. Zack
...U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896) (only state had authority to try non-Indian for murder of non-Indian); State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 144-45, 233 P. 327 (1925) (non-Indian manufacturer of liquor); State v. Batten, 17 Wash.App. 428, 430, 563 P.2d 1287 (1977) (murder of non-Indi......