State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 15 June 1903 |
| Citation | 32 Wash. 64,72 P. 707 |
| Parties | STATE v. MITCHELL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; John C. Denney, Judge.
Emmett Mitchell was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Graves & Englehart, for appellant.
H. D Cooley, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and was sentenced to a term of 20 years in the penitentiary.
The first assignment is that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that no inference of guilt shall arise against the accused by reason of his failure or refusal to testify as a witness in his own behalf. If this assignment were true in fact, it would constitute reversible error, under the decisions of this court in Linbeck v State, 1 Wash. 336, 25 P. 452; State v. Myers, 8 Wash. 177, 35 P. 580. But on that point the court instructs as follows: 'The court instructs the jury that, while the statutes of this state provide that a prisoner charged with a crime may testify in his own behalf, he is under no obligation to do so, and the statute expressly declares that his neglect to testify shall not create any presumption against him.' Section 6941 of 2 Ballinger's Ann Codes & St., provides 'that it shall be the duty of the court to instruct the jury that no inference of guilt shall arise against the accused, if the accused shall fail or refuse to testify as a witness in his or her own behalf.' We think the court's instruction was a sustantial compliance with the provisions of the statute. No particular form of words is required or can be placed in the mouth of the judge. It is the substance of things which the law regards, and it will disregard mere formalities of expression. The judge is simply the mouthpiece of the law, and the weight which the jury attaches to the instructions of the court is and should be based upon the belief of the jury that the instructions of the court are an enunciation of the law; and when the court says to the jury that no inference of guilt shall arise against the accused under certain conditions he does not say any more in substance, or protect the rights guarantied to the prisoner by the law any more, than when he tells them that the law of the state provides that no inference of guilt shall arise against the accused, if he shall fail or refuse to testify in his or her own behalf. We think the criticism is hypercritical, and that the rights of the appellant in respect to the instruction were fully protected.
It is contended that the following instruction, namely: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Louie
...C.J., concurs. 1 State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15 (1895); State v. Anderson, 20 Wash. 193, 55 P. 39 (1898); State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P. 707 (1903); State v. Fillpot, 51 Wash. 223, 98 P. 659 (1908); State v. Lewis, 65 Wash. 485, 118 P. 626 (1911); State v. Andrews, 71 Wash......
-
State v. Clayton
... ... trial. State v. Brown, 19 Wash.2d 195, 142 P.2d 257; ... State v. Cooper, 26 Wash.2d 405, 174 P.2d 545; ... State v. Hart, 26 Wash.2d 776, 175 P.2d 944 ... In the ... early case of State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P ... 707, 708, contention was made by the defendant therein that a ... certain instruction given by the trial court offended the ... constitutional provision referred to above. Disposing of that ... contention, this court said: ... 'It ... ...
-
State v. Bogart, 29356.
...upon the evidence. It is merely an explanation to the jury of their significance if they found such facts to be true. In State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P. 707, 708, case involving robbery, the court gave the following instruction: "You are further instructed that it is not necessary, to......
-
State v. Fair
... ... disturb the verdict of the jury, where there is testimony ... which, if true, is sufficient to justify it. State v ... Kroenert, 13 Wash. 644, 43 P. 876; State v ... Maldonado, 21 Wash. 653, 59 P. 489; State v ... Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P. 707; State v ... Ripley, 32 Wash. 182, 72 P. 1036 ... We ... perceive no error in the record, and the judgment as to ... appellant Frank Fair is therefore affirmed ... The ... witnesses for the defendant and appellant ... ...