State v. Miller, 23632.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23632. |
| Citation | 13 P.2d 52,168 Wash. 687 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Oakanogan County; Wm. C. Brown, Judge.
Jennie Miller was convicted of manslaughter, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Hughes & Hughes, of Wenatchee, for appellant.
Ferd J Schaaf, Pros. Atty., of Okanogan, for the State.
Trial on an information charging her with the crime of murder in the second degree resulted in defendant's conviction of the crime of manslaughter. From the judgment and sentence pronounced upon the verdict, the defendant appeals.
Counsel prosecuting this appeal did not represent the appellant in the trial court.
Insisting that Thomas Roberts was disqualified to sit as a juror inasmuch as he had a previously formed opinion as to the merits of the cause which would require evidence to remove, counsel for appellant (her peremptory challenges were then exhausted) challenged Roberts for cause. The denial of that challenge is first assigned as error.
The assignment is without substantial merit. The prospective juror stated upon his examination that from what he read 'just the same as anybody when you first read the paper,' he 'in a way' formed an opinion; that he did not at the time of the trial have any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant. We have carefully read the record of the examination of the juror. The juror did not say, nor can it be reasonably inferred from his answers, that his opinion was such that it would take evidence to remove hence State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 78 P. 1001, and the other authorities cited by appellant are not in point.
The giving of certain instructions submitting to the jury the question of whether the appellant was guilty of manslaughter and the refusal to give appellant's requested instructions defining manslaughter are assigned as error.
Counsel for appellant argue: The information charged the appellant with the crime of second degree murder, in that she effected the death of her victim with a revolver. The evidence was that the appellant withdrew a revolver from a dresser drawer to prevent the decedent from getting it, as she was apprehensive that he would use it to kill her and her daughter. When she saw the deceased extend his hand into a woodbox, she was fearful that he would take therefrom a hatchet and with it kill her and her daughter. In appellant's excitement, she pulled the trigger of the revolver, and the decedent's death ensued. Under that state of facts appellant was either guilty of murder in the second degree as charged or not guilty because of justifiable or excusable homicide.
Counsel for appellant requested five instructions on manslaughter. In one of those requested instructions the jury is charged that 'the crime of manslaughter is included in the charge of murder in the second degree in this case.' The evidence clearly established the fact that appellant was guilty of murder in the second degree. The strategic moves to secure a verdict of guilty of a lesser crime if she could not escape conviction of the more serious offense were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henderson
...error and thereby allow a defendant to pursue one theory at trial and, if unsuccessful there, another on appeal. State v. Miller, 168 Wash. 687, 689, 13 P.2d 52 (1932). These decisions rest on a desire to prevent a party from strategically trapping a court, and thus leave room for applying ......
-
State v. Conklin, 41928
...guilty permits all defenses, excepting insanity and prior conviction or acquittal. See RCW 10.40.180; RCW 10.76.020; State v. Miller, 168 Wash. 687, 13 P.2d 52 (1932). See also RCW 10.37.033. The state must prove each necessary element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and d......