State v. Strange
| Decision Date | 15 September 1908 |
| Citation | 50 Wash. 321,97 P. 233 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. STRANGE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Whitman County; S. J. Chadwick, Judge.
Marion C. Strange was charged by information with the crime of family desertion, and from a judgment of dismissal, on the ground that the prosecuting attorney had no authority to file an information when he did so, the state appeals. Reversed and remanded.
R. H Kipp and J. L. Wallace, for the State.
R. J Neergaard and McCroskey & Canfield, for respondent.
On the 29th day of October, 1907, the prosecuting attorney of Whitman county filed an information against respondent charging him with the crime of family desertion. A grand jury had been convened, by order of the court, on the 21st day of October, 1907, and, after continuing at labor until the 26th of October, adjourned until November 4, 1907, the information having been filed as aforesaid during the interval of this adjournment. The respondent was arraigned on the 4th of November, entered a plea of not guilty at that time, and appeared for trial on the 29th day of November, 1907. No demurrer or motion of any kind was interposed as against the information, until the case was called for trial and a jury had been impaneled and sworn to try the case. Then respondent objected to proceeding further, on the ground that the prosecuting attorney had no authority to file an information at the time when this information was filed claiming that, in contemplation of law, the grand jury was then in session. The plea of not guilty was not withdrawn. The trial court sustained the objection, and dismissed the action. From this judgment of dismissal the state appeals.
It is the appellant's contention that the respondent waived his right to demur, to quash, or set aside the information, and any objection he may have had to the filing of the information by the prosecuting attorney when he entered his plea of not guilty, instead of interposing such demurrer motion, or objection. Appellant further contends that, at the time this information was filed, the grand jury was not in session within the meaning of the statute, which limits the time wherein an information may be filed by such officer. We think both of these contentions must be upheld. When the respondent was called upon to enter his plea to the information, he should have interposed any objection which he had to the filing thereof by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McBride
... ... arrest of judgment. The reasons for the rule are well stated ... in the following decision: State v. Blanchard, 11 ... Wash. 116, 39 P. 377; State v. Bodeckar, 11 Wash ... 417, 39 P. 645; State v. Strange, 50 Wash. 321, 97 ... P. 233; State v. Philips, 65 Wash. 324, 118 P. 43 ... The ... denial of the motion in arrest of judgment is also assigned ... as error. It was based on grounds as follows: (1) That the ... information does not state any offense known to ... ...
-
State v. Beebe, 26063.
...to set aside a verdict of guilty. State v. Blanchard, 11 Wash. 116, 39 P. 377; State v. Bodeckar, 11 Wash. 417, 39 P. 645; State v. Strange, 50 Wash. 321, 97 P. 233; v. Phillips, 65 Wash. 324, 118 P. 43; State v. McBride, 72 Wash. 390, 130 P. 486, 488. In the last-cited case, the court said......
-
State v. Hopper
...trial and then spring an objection that might and should have been interposed prior to the incurring of such expense. State v. Strange, 50 Wash. 321, 322, 97 P. 233 (1908). [I]t is but just to the state that it have notice of the particular objections which may be interposed to the accusati......
-
City of Seattle v. Jordan
...the sufficiency of the complaint by failing to move against or demur thereto prior to the time of trial, relying upon State v. Strange, 50 Wash. 321, 97 P. 233, the court said: 'A defendant in a criminal case should not be permitted to put a county and the state to the expense of preparing ......