State v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12437. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SNYDER. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; Ralph Kauffman, Judge.
James A. Snyder was convicted, and appeals. Affirmed.
O. O Felkner, of Ellensburg, for appellant.
F. A Kern and Newton Henton, both of Ellensburg, for the State.
The defendant in this case was, on the 1st day of November, 1913 by information charged with the crime of unlawfully feloniously, carnally knowing a certain female child under the age of 15 years, and not the wife of the defendant. In the information the crime is alleged to have been committed on or about the 1st day of June, 1911. To the information the defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. A motion for a new trial being made and overruled, judgment was entered upon the verdict and sentence imposed. From this judgment and sentence the appeal is prosecuted.
The female child mentioned in the information was the stepdaughter of the defendant; the mother of the child was his then wife. Subsequent to the time when the crime is alleged to have been committed, and prior to the date of the trial, the wife of the defendant had been divorced from him. Upon the trial, and over the objection of the defendant, the divorced wife was permitted to testify to certain corroborative acts and facts. At the time when the crime was committed, the law making corroboration necessary in cases of this character had not been repealed. Laws of 1913, c. 100, p. 298.
The facts in this case, as shown by the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of the state, are of such a revolting character that they will not here be further detailed.
The principal question in the case is whether a divorced wife can testify against her former husband as to facts or acts occurring during the marriage relation. The statute (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1214), after providing that the husband shall not be examined for or against his wife as a witness without the consent of the wife, nor the wife for or against the husband without the consent of the husband, continues:
'Nor shall either, during marriage or afterwards, without the consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during marriage.'
Under this statute the divorced wife was a competent witness against the appellant, except as to communications made by one to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breimon v. General Motors Corp.
...... State v. Thorne, 43 Wash.2d 47, 55, 260 P.2d 331 (1953), said: . the privilege against having the husband or wife testify as to confidential ...1961). A spouse should not be placed in fear that a future change in marital status would find his innermost secrets broadcast. State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485, 147 P. 38 (1915). . Third persons may testify to conversations between spouses that were overheard. Wolfle v. United ......
-
State v. Roach
......Since this case involves a married couple, we refer to the privileges under the statute as spousal privileges. 3 The spousal communications privilege would be inapplicable here because the events Daniels was asked to testify to were not confidential. See State v. Snyder , 84 Wash. 485, 486, 147 P. 38 (1915) (spousal communications rule applies to only confidential communications); State v. Wilder , 12 Wash. App. 296, 299, 529 P.2d 1109 (1974) (presence of third parties defeated confidentiality required to invoke spousal communications privilege). Here, in each of ......
-
United States v. Lewis
...... 6 The record leaves appellant's true marital status at the time of trial in a state of confusion. It is uncontradicted that, approximately one month before the holdup of the delicatessen, appellant went through a marriage ceremony ...Smith v. State, 198 Ind. 156, 152 N.E. 803, 805 (1926). See also State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485, 147 P. 38, 39 (1915); 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2337 at 660 (McNaughton rev. 1961). The two cases on which appellant principally ......
-
State v. Roach
...privilege would be inapplicable here because the events Daniels was asked to testify to were not confidential. See State v. Snyder, 84 Wash. 485, 486, 147 P. 38 (1915) (spousal communications rule applies to only confidential communications); State v. Wilder, 12 Wn. App. 296, 299, 529 P.2d ......