State v. Roby, 32456
Decision Date | 12 November 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 32456,32456 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE, v. ROBY. |
Thos. A. E. Lally, Spokane, Lloyd A. Eyrich, Newport, for appellant.
Norman A. Ericson, Pros. Atty., Newport for respondent.
This is an appeal from a conviction of second degree assault in the superior court for Pend Oreille county. On the evening of November 30, 1951, defendant Roby was playing poker with several individuals, including the prosecuting witness Abrahamson, in a tavern at Cusick, Washington. From time to time throughout the evening, unpleasant and angry words passed between Roby and Abrahamson. The game broke up around midnight, the closing time for the tavern. Abrahamson testified that he gathered up his poker chips in both hands and started for the bar to cash them, whereupon Roby challenged him to fight. abrahamson agreed to go outside to fight. According to his testimony, he then turned, started for the bar to cash the poker chips; Roby jumped him from behind, and assaulted him with a knife. The evidence is uncontroverted that Abrahamson received multiple lacerations of the face, requiring some twenty-six stitches to close, as well as less serious cuts on his arm and shoulder. All were inflicted by a pocket knife wielded by defendant Roby.
Roby's testimony, in substance, was that, as he left the poker game, Abrahamson grabbed him and forced him towards the back of the card room. He saw a knife in Abrahamson's hand, raised his left arm to fend off the weapon, and received a wound in the hand during the process. Roby testified specifically, in part, as follows:
Later, he testified:
To counteract the defendant's claim of self-defense, the prosecution attempted to show that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the defendant to have held off an assailant with one hand while simultaneously reaching in his pocket and opening a knife with the other hand. On cross-examination, the prosecution requested defendant Roby to demonstrate to the jury his version of the fight--that is, how he held Abrahamson with one hand and was able to withdraw a knife from his pocket and to open it with the other hand. At this point, in the cross-examination by the state, the record shows that the following transpired:
'Mr. Lally: Keep your seat until I find out what he wants.
'Mr. Ericson: Q. I would like you to demonstrate how you got this knife open.
'Mr. Lally: I object to it; not proper cross examination.
'The Court: Objection overruled.
'The Witness: I am willing.
'Mr. Lally: Exception.
'The Court: Exception allowed.
'Mr. Lally: I submit further, your Honor, the only way he can make a demonstration is to bring the complaining witness into the demonstration and make it complete.
'Mr. Ericson: All right.
'Mr. Lally: And the other five players at the table.
'Mr. Ericson: Put this knife in your pocket.
'Mr. Ericson: I opened it half a dozen times.
'Mr. Lally: You probably opened the blade you wanted to have opened.
'The Court: Proceed.
'Mr. Lally: I submit, your Honor,--Go ahead.
'Mr. Lally: May I suggest, counsel, you have your witness put his hands where they were?
'Mr. Ericson: Did you have your hands on him, Mr. Abrahamson?
'Mr. Abrahamson: I had my hands like that (illustrating).
'The Court: Let the defendant have Joe Abrahamson put his hands where the defendant says his hands were.
'
'The Court: Is that all you want.
Appellant's first assignment of error reads:
'The trial court abused its discretion in overruling the objection of counsel for defendant and permitting defendant to demonstrate before the jury the manner in which he opened the pocket knife on cross-examination.'
In support of the above assignment of error, appellant urges the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Burkins
...trial court has broad discretion to decide whether to permit demonstrations and experiments in the jury's presence. State v. Roby, 43 Wash.2d 652, 655, 263 P.2d 273 (1953); Stockmyer, 83 Wash.App. at 85, 920 P.2d 1201. Evidence is relevant if a logical nexus exists between the evidence and ......
-
State v. Boast
... ... See Sepich v. Department of Labor & Indus., 75 Wash.2d 312, 316, 450 P.2d 940 (1969), State v ... Roby, 43 Wash.2d 652, 656, 263 P.2d 273 (1953), and Rowe v. Dixon, 31 Wash.2d 173, 180, 196 P.2d 327 (1948) ... Appellant's counsel on ... ...
-
State v. Parker, 833--III
...State v. Farley, 48 Wash.2d 11, 290 P.2d 987 (1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 858, 77 S.Ct. 79, 1 L.Ed.2d 65 (1956); State v. Roby, 43 Wash.2d 652, 263 P.2d 273 (1953); Rowe v. Dixon, 31 Wash.2d 173, 196 P.2d 327 (1948); Kull v. Department of Lab. & Indus., 21 Wash.2d 672, 152 P.2d 961 (1944)......
-
State v. Farley, 33060
...460, 43 P. 532, 534, 1099; Mosler v. Woodell, 189 Wash. 583, 66 P.2d 353; State v. Sparr, 39 Wash.2d 576, 237 P.2d 194; State v. Roby, 43 Wash.2d 652, 263 P.2d 273. The appellant contends the trial court erred in relation to the following 'The Court: You may proceed, Mr. O'Connell. 'Q. Mr. ......