State v. Pettilla

• Decision Date: 22 August 1921
• Docket Number: 16324.
• Citation: 200 P. 332,116 Wash. 589
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. PETTILLA et al.

200 P. 332

116 Wash. 589

STATE v. PETTILLA et al.

No. 16324.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 22, 1921

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; John D. Fletcher, Judge.

Alfred Pettilla and others were convicted of the crime of criminal syndicalism, and they appeal. Conviction set aside, and new trial granted.

Geo. F. Vanderveer and Ralph S. Pierce, both of Seattle, and Leslie B. Sulgrove, of Butte, Mont., for appellants.

William D. Askren and Earl V. Clifford, both of Tacoma, for the State.

MACKINTOSH J.

The defendants were convicted of the crime of criminal syndicalism and have made many assignments of error, a renewed discussion of a majority of which is unnecessary, as they have been disposed of adversely to defendants' position in many recent cases, involving the same section of the criminal law.

Among these assignments, however, are several which refer to the admission of testimony of several witnesses, who were allowed to say upon the stand that they had talked with various persons, at different times and places, who, the witnesses believed, were members of the I. W. W., by reason of the possession by some of them of membership cards, by statements made by others that they were members, and by the assumption of the witnesses that they were such members, and that in those conversations those persons had revealed the purposes and objects of the I. W. W. organization. These witnesses also testified as to speeches and remarks made at meetings of I. W. W.'s and various I. W. W. assemblages. Under the decision of this court in State v. Gibson, 197 P 611, the testimony of these witnesses as to statements made to them by persons who they had reason to believe were I. W W.'s as to the objects and purposes of the organization were inadmissible, and constituted prejudicial error which entitles the appellants to a new trial.

The rule is that the ban of hearsay testimony must be placed upon the use of witnesses whose testimony is a recital of what they have been told by persons who they have reason to believe are I. W. W.'s either by the discovery upon them of membersip cards, or by their declarations of membership or other facts which lead the witnesses to the belief of the membership in the organization of the persons with whom they have held the conversations touching the purposes and objects, the principles and teachings, of the organization but that witnesses may...