State v. Rathie
| Decision Date | 20 September 1921 |
| Citation | 200 P. 790,101 Or. 368 |
| Parties | STATE v. RATHIE ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County; Gilbert W. Phelps, Judge.
On petition for rehearing. Former opinion adhered to and rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 199 P. 169.
See, also, 200 P. 790.
Charles F. Bolin, of Toppenish, Wash., and Thomas H. Wilson, of Yakima, Wash., for appellants.
I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., and R.I. Keator, Dist. Atty., and C. Z. Randall, Deputy Dist. Atty., both of Pendleton, for the State.
We have carefully considered the petition of the defendants for a rehearing, and are unable to find therefrom any substantial reason for deviating from the views expressed in the original opinion. It is true that by inadvertence it was stated that Edward J. Clark, an attorney of Pendleton, was a nonresident of the county, but in view of what we consider the weight of affidavit testimony introduced on the motion for a change of venue, we do not look upon that fact as controlling. The motion was heard before a judge who had resided in the county for many years, and who by his long residence and necessary acquaintance over the county was well qualified to pass upon the condition of the public mind and to appraise the value of the testimony introduced relating to this matter.
The other matters urged in the petition for rehearing were carefully considered before the original opinion was handed down, and, as before remarked, we see no reason to change our views. We fully appreciate the serious consequences of our decision, but these consequences are such as the defendants have invoked by their conduct, and which we cannot avert without doing violence to established principles of the law. The defendants, in our judgment, had a fair trial; and any one who reads the record will see that they were ably and faithfully defended. So viewing the case, we are constrained to deny the petition for rehearing, and it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamb v. State
...... Choquette, 202 P. 68, 109 Kan. 780; Ernst v. State, 193 N.W. 978, 181 Wis. 155; Smith v. Commonwealth, 146 S.W. 4, 148 Ky. 60; State v. Ray, 207 P. 192, 111 Kan. 350; State v. Richardson, 237 S.W. 765, 291 Mo. 566; State v. Latshaw, 237 S.W. 770, 291 Mo. 592; State v. Rathie, 20 P. 790, 101 Or. 368; People v. Mooney, 174 P. 325, 178 Cal. 525; People v. Drysch, 143 N.E. 100, 311 Ill. 342; Sease v. State, 247 S.W. 1036, 157 Ark. 217. . . Where a. judgment of conviction of a crime has been affirmed on writ. of error, the trial court cannot then grant a ......
-
State v. Huffman
...between the ancient writ and the modern motion which has been substituted therefor. We will first consider the case of State v. Rathie, 101 Or. 368, 200 P. 790. The defendant in that case was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Sheriff Tillman Taylor. State v. Rathie, 1921, 1......
-
Huffman v. Alexander
...the desirability of remedial legislation. Only once has the writ of error coram nobis been directly before this court. In State v. Rathie, 101 Or. 368, 200 P. 790, one who had been convicted of murder in the first degree attempted to sue out a writ of error coram nobis in the circuit court ......
-
Dorn v. Three Rivers Sch. Dist.
...involved individual voir dire of prospective jurors. See State v. Rathie et al. , 101 Or. 339, 348-49, 199 P. 169, reh'g den. , 101 Or. 368, 200 P. 790 (1921) ; Megorden , 49 Or. at 263, 88 P. 306. Specifically, the lawyers for the parties in those cases examined and the court ruled on each......