State v. Rathie
| Decision Date | 20 September 1921 |
| Citation | 200 P. 790,101 Or. 339 |
| Parties | STATE v. RATHIE ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County; Gilbert W. Phelps, Judge.
John L. Rathie and Elvie D. Kirby, the latter indicted under the name of James Owen, were convicted of murder in the first degree, which conviction was affirmed (199 P. 169), and, pending a petition for rehearing, sued out a writ of error coram nobis, which proceeding was dismissed, and they appeal. Order of dismissal affirmed.
Charles F. Bolin, of Toppenish, Wash., and Thomas H. Wilson, of akimYa, 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.
A writ of error coram nobis is defined as follows:
"It is a writ of error issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction, directed to the judges of a court of record in which final judgment has been given, and commanding them, in some cases, themselves to examine the record, in others to send it to another court of appellate jurisdiction, therein named, to be examined, in order tat some alleged error in the proceedings may be corrected." 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1248.
By section 1603, Or. L. (Olson's Comp.) all writs of error and of certiorari are abolished in criminal cases. Said section is as follows:
"Writs of errors and of certiorari in criminal actions are abolished, and hereafter the only mode of reviewing a judgment or order in a criminal action is that prescribed by this chapter."
This section is plainly fatal to appellants' contention here, and the order of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hazell v. Brown
- Dorn v. Three Rivers Sch. Dist.
-
State v. Mannix
... ... Consequently, the juror did not actually sit on the jury that was empanelled for trial. * * * Defendant did not and does not argue that any member of the jury panel that actually decided his guilt should have been excused for cause.”); State v. Rathie et al., 101 Or. 339, 348–49, 199 P. 169 (1921); State v. Berliner, 232 Or.App. 539, 542, 222 P.3d 744 (2009), rev. den.,348 Or. 291, 231 P.3d 795 (2010). Defendant does not contend that, because he had to use a peremptory ... ...
-
State v. Spunaugle
... ... Cruse, 231 Or. 326, 330, 372 P.2d 974, 976 (1962); State v. Rathie et al., 101 Or. 339, 199 P. 169, 200 P. 790 (1921); State v. Lem Woon, 57 Or. 482, 107 P. 974, 112 P. 427 (1910) ... Here the defendant was forced to testify to the commission of a crime (the possession of marihuana) other than the one for which he was being tried. Such evidence ... ...