State v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 22 January 1896
• Citation: 13 Wash. 523,43 P. 637
• Parties: STATE v. NELSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

43 P. 637

13 Wash. 523

STATE v. NELSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 22, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Columbia county; R. F. Sturdevant Judge.

Sam Nelson was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.

Griffitts & Nuzum, for appellant.

Will H Fouts, for the State.

HOYT C.J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary, and from the judgment and sentence imposed has prosecuted this appeal. The first reason assigned for reversal is that the superior court had no jurisdiction, because the necessary facts which would entitle the prosecuting attorney to file an information did not exist. The argument upon this question proceeded upon the theory that the record of the court below did not show that any of the conditions required by the statute, upon which the prosecuting attorney was authorized to file an information existed. From the original transcript nothing was made to appear in relation to this question, but by a supplement thereto sent up by the respondent it appears that the defendant was in custody on a charge of felony, and that the court was in session and the grand jury not in session. Hence, the conditions required by the statute were shown to exist, and were sufficient to authorize the filing of the information.

The only other errors assigned are founded upon rulings of the court in the admission and rejection of testimony. As to the admission of testimony, the only complaint is that the court allowed certain testimony to be put in by way of rebuttal that should have been introduced as a part of the plaintiff's principal case. But the statement of facts fails to disclose any such circumstances as would authorize us to reverse the judgment for the reason that the court abused its discretion, even if we should come to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant that the testimony should have been introduced as a part of the principal case was correct. The appellant had introduced one Hayden as a witness, who testified to certain facts. Afterwards the respondent introduced testimony tending to show a different state of facts. Then appellant sought to put in additional testimony in support of the statements of Hayden. The ground upon which he sought this was that the respondent by its testimony had impeached the witness Hayden and that on that account he was entitled to sustain him. If testimony had been introduced which was strictly in impeachment of the...