State v. Patchen

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RUDKIN, J. FULLERTON, J.
• Citation: State v. Patchen, 37 Wash. 24, 79 P. 479 (Wash. 1905)
• Decision Date: 06 February 1905
• Parties: STATE v. PATCHEN.

79 P. 479

37 Wash. 24

STATE v. PATCHEN.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 6, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; W. R. Bell, Judge.

Washington Patchen was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Fullerton J., dissenting.

T. D. Page, for appellant.

W. T Scott and Hermon W. Craven, for the State.

RUDKIN J.

The defendant in this cause was convicted of the crime of rape upon a female child of the age of 10 years. From the judgment and sentence of the court this appeal is prosecuted. It will be unnecessary to refer to the testimony except for the purpose of explaining the ruling of the court in excluding evidence on cross-examination to which an exception was taken.

1. The offense was committed in a room occupied by the appellant. There were present at the time the appellant, the prosecuting witness, and two other children of the ages of 11 and 12 years, respectively. The three children went to the room together, and remained there but a very short time, during which the crime is alleged to have been committed. One of the children, other than the prosecuting witness, was a witness for the state at the trial. Counsel for appellant asked her on cross-examination, in substance, if the appellant committed the same crime upon her at the same place, and immediately after the commission of the crime against the prosecuting witness for which the appellant was on trial. The court sustained the objection to this question, and an exception was allowed. Counsel for appellant immediately repeated the question in a slightly different form, and the witness answered, 'Yes, sir.' After the question was answered, the court, of its own motion, sustained the objection, and cautioned counsel not to proceed further along that line. The answer of the witness was permitted to stand. The appellant had the full benefit of the answer, and it was no doubt, the answer he expected, as his counsel adverts to this answer in his argument to this court. There was therefore no ruling of the trial court which can be reviewed in this court. We do not desire to be understood, however, as approving the ruling of the trial judge in thus restricting the cross-examination of these three witnesses. Under the circumstances of this case we think the appellant should have been permitted to interrogate all these witnesses fully as to everything that transpired in the room during the brief time they were there, for the purpose of testing their credibility, and for the further purpose of showing the improbability of the truth of their testimony, if he could. The fact that such cross-examination tended to prove the commission of another crime was no valid objection.

2. Counsel excepted to the following instruction given by the court: 'One may be convicted of the crime of rape upon the unsupported evidence of an infant under years of discretion, if the jury is satisfied that the ...