State v. Riley

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtFULLERTON, C.J.
Citation78 P. 1001,36 Wash. 441
Decision Date30 December 1904
PartiesSTATE v. RILEY.

78 P. 1001

36 Wash. 441

STATE
v.
RILEY.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 30, 1904


Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; Geo. C. Hatch, Judge.

Tilley Blanche Riley was convicted of perjury, and appeals. Reversed.

Trumbull & Trumbull, for appellant.

Geo. H. Clementson, J. E. Cochran, and Jas. G. McClinton, for the State.

FULLERTON, C.J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of perjury, and appeals from the judgment and sentence pronounced against her. The information upon which the appellant was first arrested was filed on November 29, 1901. To this information the appellant filed a demurrer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime, which demurrer the trial court, after argument heard thereon, overruled. On December 21, 1901, the state [36 Wash. 442] asked and obtained leave of the court to withdraw the first information and file another one charging the appellant with the same crime. Leave was given accordingly, and a new information was filed on the same day. To this information the appellant also demurred generally, which demurrer the court also overruled. In January, 1902, the appellant was tried for the offense charged in the second information; the trial resulting in a verdict of guilty, which was returned on the 25th day of that month. On the 27th day of the same month this verdict was, on the motion of appellant, set aside by the court on the ground that the appellant had not had a fair or impartial trial. After the new trial had been granted, the state asked and obtained leave to withdraw the second information and file a third one, supporting its application by an affidavit pointing out in what particulars and for what reason the state deemed the second information faulty, and a new one desirable. This motion was granted over the objection of the appellant. The appellant was thereafter tried upon this third information, found guilty by the jury, and the judgment and sentence pronounced against her, from which this appeal is taken.

The appellant first contends that the several orders of the court above referred to permitting the withdrawal of the informations filed and the filing of new ones against her amounted to such a gross abuse of discretion as to entitle her to a discharge and to a dismissal of the prosecution against her. She concedes that it is largely a matter of discretion with the trial court whether or [78 P. 1002] not the prosecution may amend the information in the course of a criminal proceeding, but she contends that the circumstances here were such that the amendment operated to her prejudice, and deprived her of substantial rights. She urges that when the court overruled the demurrer to the [36 Wash. 443] second information, and overruled an objection to the admission of testimony made at the trial on the ground that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, that such rulings became the law of the case, binding upon the superior court, not subject thereafter to modification or change by it. She urges further that after the court became convinced that the demurrer, and objection to the admission of evidence, was well taken, it was its duty to discharge the defendant, rather than grant a new trial, and afterwards permit the information to be amended; that these rulings tended to mislead her, as she would not have filed a motion for a new trial had she understood that the court was going to grant it on the ground of the insufficiency of the information, but would have appealed directly from any judgment the court might have pronounced against her.

It is doubtless true that if the rulings of the trial court complained of prevented the appellant from having a fair and impartial trial on the merits of the controversy, or if they deprived her in any way of a substantial right guarantied her by law, which would entitle her to a judgment of acquittal without a determination of the merits, the rulings amounted to error, and she is now entitled to have such a judgment directed in her favor. But we are unable to see in what way the court's rulings could have any such result. It is not error for a court to allow the information to be withdrawn, and another, more perfect one, be substituted in its stead. State v. Gile, 8 Wash. 12, 35 P. 417; State v. Hansen, 10 Wash. 235, 38 P. 1023; State v. Lyts, 25 Wash. 347, 65 P. 530. Nor was it error to do so after the court had first considered it and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 Septiembre 1943
    ...State v. Boyce, 24 Wash. 514, 64 P. 719, and State v. Farris, 26 Wash. 205, 66 P. 412, questioned by [17 Wn.2d 149] State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 447, 78 P. 1001, in which we held that jurors who have formed opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, which it would take evide......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 Septiembre 1943
    ...State v. Boyce, 24 Wash. 514, 64 P. 719, and State v. Farris, 26 Wash. 205, 66 P. 412, questioned by [17 Wn.2d 149] State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 447, 78 P. 1001, in which we held that jurors who have formed opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, which it would take evide......
  • State ex rel. Granite Inv. Co. v. Superior Court of Washington for Stevens County, 18573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Septiembre 1924
    ...whether the result of inadvertence or of a mistaken view of the rule of law applicable to the situation. As we said in State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 78 P. 1001: 'If the trial court finds, at any stage of proceedings prior to the entry of final judgment, that it has committed an error that w......
  • State v. Ware
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 31 Mayo 1910
    ...v. Wilcox, 11 Wash. 215, 39 P. 368; State v. Rutten, 13 Wash. 203, 43 P. 30; State v. Moody, 18 Wash. 165, 51 P. 356; State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 78 P. 1001. Where the law [58 Wash. 529] presumes innocence, the jury must indulge the same presumption; but where, upon the admitted facts, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 Septiembre 1943
    ...State v. Boyce, 24 Wash. 514, 64 P. 719, and State v. Farris, 26 Wash. 205, 66 P. 412, questioned by [17 Wn.2d 149] State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 447, 78 P. 1001, in which we held that jurors who have formed opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, which it would take evide......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 Septiembre 1943
    ...State v. Boyce, 24 Wash. 514, 64 P. 719, and State v. Farris, 26 Wash. 205, 66 P. 412, questioned by [17 Wn.2d 149] State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 447, 78 P. 1001, in which we held that jurors who have formed opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, which it would take evide......
  • State ex rel. Granite Inv. Co. v. Superior Court of Washington for Stevens County, 18573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Septiembre 1924
    ...whether the result of inadvertence or of a mistaken view of the rule of law applicable to the situation. As we said in State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 78 P. 1001: 'If the trial court finds, at any stage of proceedings prior to the entry of final judgment, that it has committed an error that w......
  • State v. Ware
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 31 Mayo 1910
    ...v. Wilcox, 11 Wash. 215, 39 P. 368; State v. Rutten, 13 Wash. 203, 43 P. 30; State v. Moody, 18 Wash. 165, 51 P. 356; State v. Riley, 36 Wash. 441, 78 P. 1001. Where the law [58 Wash. 529] presumes innocence, the jury must indulge the same presumption; but where, upon the admitted facts, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT