State v. Miller
Decision Date | 19 February 1913 |
Citation | 72 Wash. 174,130 P. 356 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; F. K. B Baske, Judge.
B. J Miller was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Martin & Wilson, of Davenport, for appellant.
James S. Freece and C. A. Pettijohn, both of Davenport, for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the superior court for Lincoln county of selling intoxicating liquor in the city of Davenport, while that town was a unit within which the sale of intoxicating liquor was prohibited by virtue of an election held therein under the local option law. Laws 1909 p. 153; Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6292, and following. He has appealed to this court.
It is first contended by counsel for appellant that the local option law is unconstitutional and void, in that it constitutes an unwarranted delegation of legislative power to the electors of the various units defined by the law. This contention is fully answered in favor of the prosecution by our decision in State v. Donovan, 61 Wash. 209, 112 P. 260, and cases there cited.
It is contended that the court erred in excluding the offered testimony of the witness Kelly, as to the reputation for truth and veracity of the witness Butler, who had testified for the prosecution. This offered testimony was excluded upon the ground that the witness Kelly did not show himself qualified to testify as to the reputation of the witness Butler. Kelly testified concerning his knowledge of Butler as follows: We are of the opinion that this does not show such an acquaintance with Butler's reputation as to qualify Kelly to testify relative thereto. In the text of 40 Cyc. at page 2630, it is said: 'A stranger sent out by one party to learn the character of a witness of the other party should not be permitted to testify as to the result of his inquiries.' This rule seems to be fully supported by the decisions. In the case of Curtis v. Fay, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 69, the court said: Reid v. Reid, 17 N. J. Eq. 101; Clapp v. Engledow, 72 Tex. 252, 10 S.W. 462. Our decision in Bringgold v. Bringgold, 40 Wash. 121, 82 P. 179, is in harmony with this view.
The prosecution relied for conviction principally upon the testimony of two witnesses who, for the sake of argument, we may regard as detectives. Counsel for appellant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: 'You are instructed that, if you find from the evidence that any detective or police officer has given testimony herein, under the law you are to weigh the testimony of such witnesses with great care and to closely scrutinize the same, owing to the nature of their business and the almost unavoidable tendency of such witness to overdraw their testimony.' The refusal to give this instruction is assigned as error. There might possibly be some ground for the giving of such an instruction in jurisdictions where the court may comment upon the facts though even in such jurisdictions we think that the giving of such an instruction would be within the discretion of the trial court, with which the appellate court would not interfere. Section 16, art. 4, of our Constitution, provides: 'Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Mode
...the statute makes or intends to make its own action depend.' And this rule is sustained by the great weight of authority." State v. Miller, 72 Wash. 174, 130 Pac. 356. West Virginia. In the case of Rutter v. Sullivan, 25 W. Va. 433, the Supreme Court of that state announces the following as......
-
Arnold v. Alton R. Co.
...Houston, 263 S.W. 219; Young v. Corrigan, 208 F. 431; Commonwealth v. Baxter, 166 N.E. 742; Minkow v. United States, 5 F.2d 319; State v. Miller, 130 P. 356; Poe v. 124 S.W. 1029; Ulrich v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 220 S.W. 682; Boswell v. Blackman, 12 Ga. 593; Johnson v. Martendale, 288 S.W. 9......
-
State v. Thompson
...v. Siebenbaum, 105 Wash. 157, 177 P. 669; Allison v. Bartelt, 121 Wash. 418, 209 P. 863; State v. Ito, 129 Wash. 402, 225 P. 63. In State v. Miller, supra, an instruction commenting upon weight of the testimony of a police officer and telling the jury to closely scrutinize such testimony wa......
-
State v. Washington, 31720
...a general instruction on credibility, as was done in this case. It was not error to refuse the requested instruction. See State v. Miller, 72 Wash. 174, 130 P. 356. The court refused to give appellant's requested instruction No. 5, which reads as follows: 'You are instructed that if you fin......