State v. Pethoud, 34814
| Decision Date | 18 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34814,34814 |
| Citation | 53 Wn.2d 276,332 P.2d 1092 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Chester Clyde PETHOUD, Appellant. |
Chester Clyde Pethoud, per se.
Arnold R. Zempel, Stuart C. French, Everett, for respondent.
The appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of assault in the first degree. While serving his sentence in the state penitentiary, on June 19, 1958, he petitioned the superior court wherein he was tried and convicted for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the prosecuting witness at his trial was of unsound mind and that the prosecutor knew or should have known of this fact, whereas the appellant and his attorney did not. It was the position of the appellant that had the jury known of this fact, it would not have returned a verdict of guilty.
The court denied the writ on several grounds, one of which was that the petition did not state facts which would justify the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis, assuming that such a writ were available in this jurisdiction. The appellant assigns error to this ruling. The ruling if correct is sufficient to sustain the denial of the petition.
As stated in State v. Domanski, 31 Wash.2d 277, 196 P.2d 344, the writ of error coram nobis, where available, lies for an error of fact not apparent on the record, not attributable to the applicant's negligence, and which if known to the court, would have prevented rendition of the judgment. As we said in that case, this court has never been called upon to decide whether such a writ is available in this jurisdiction, no case having arisen wherein facts which would sustain the issuance of the writ were stated.
The contention of the appellant is, in substance, that the court erred in permitting an incompetent witness to testify. The circumstance on which he bases his assertion that the witness was incompetent was that, several months prior to the trial, the witness was involved in an automobile accident in which he received a blow on his head, and thereafter, when he was called into justice court to answer a charge of negligent driving, the justice of the peace entered the following notation on his docket:
The incident came to the attention of the appellant in the course of an extensive investigation of the witness which he conducted after he began to serve his sentence in the penitentiary.
The notation of the disposition of the case, made by the justice of the peace, of course did not amount to an adjudication of insanity. Jurisdiction of such matters is vested in the superior court, under RCW 11.02.010. His notation did not purport to be such an adjudication, but merely his observation of the defendant's state of mind at that time. If anything more was ever done about the matter, that fact does not appear in the record and briefs before us.
In interpreting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brousseau
...case that unless a witness had been adjudicated insane, there was no presumption that the witness was incompetent. State v. Pethoud, 53 Wash.2d 276, 278, 332 P.2d 1092 (1958). We also held in S.J.W. that the burden of proving incompetency is on the party challenging the competency of the wi......
-
State v. Karpenski
...67 Wash.2d 238, 241, 406 P.2d 950 (1965); see also, e.g., State v. Froehlich, 96 Wash.2d 301, 635 P.2d 127 (1981); State v. Pethoud, 53 Wash.2d 276, 278, 332 P.2d 1092 (1958); State v. Moorison, 43 Wash.2d 23, 27, 259 P.2d 1105 (1953); State v. Watkins, 71 Wash.App. 164, 169, 857 P.2d 300 (......
-
State v. Stamm
...The competency of a witness to testify is for the trial court within the exercise of sound discretion. RCW 5.60.050; State v. Pethoud, 53 Wash.2d 276, 332 P.2d 1092 (1958), Cert. denied, 359 U.S. 949, 79 S.Ct. 734, 3 L.Ed.2d 682 (1959); State v. Bishop, 51 Wash.2d 884, 322 P.2d 883 (1958); ......
-
State v. Angevine
...767, 172 P.2d 207; State v. Hensley, 27 Wash.2d 938, 181 P.2d 828; State v. Domanski, 31 Wash.2d 277, 196 P.2d 344; State v. Pethoud, 53 Wash.2d 276, 332 P.2d 1092.6 S.H.A. (Ill.) Ch. 110, § 101.26(4), provides: 'In no case shall a plea of guilty or waiver of indictment be received or accep......