State v. Strodemier

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court[41 Wash. 160] MOUNT, C.J.
Citation83 P. 22,41 Wash. 159
Decision Date26 December 1905
PartiesSTATE v. STRODEMIER.

83 P. 22

41 Wash. 159

STATE
v.
STRODEMIER.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 26, 1905


Appeal from Superior Court, Douglas County; R. S. Steiner, Judge.

Henry Strodemier was convicted of cattle stealing, and he appeals. Reversed.

Rudkin and Fullerton, JJ., dissenting.

W. J. Canton and W. E. Southard, for appellant.

W. A. Reneaw and Sam B. Hill, for the State.

[41 Wash. 160] MOUNT, C.J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of cattle stealing. He alleges three errors of the trial court. One of these is decided adversely to his contention in State v. Strodemier (Wash., filed December 6, 1905) 82 P. 915. Another cannot arise upon a new trial. It is therefore necessary for us to consider but one of the alleged errors. At the beginning of the trial of the case the jury was ordered kept together in charge of sworn bailiffs. While the jurors were not sitting in the jury box, they were kept at a hotel at the county seat. On the morning of January 5, 1905, before the court had convened for the day, and before the jury had breakfasted, one of the jurors, in company with one of the bailiffs, went to a public drinking saloon out of the hotel, without permission of the court or the consent of appellant, and there took a drink of whisky, and immediately returned in charge of said bailiff to the other jurors at the hotel. One or two other persons besides the bartender were in the saloon while the juror and the bailiff were there, but no conversation took place between said juror and other persons, except such conversation[41 Wash. 161] as was necessary to order drinks. Appellant maintains that this was such misconduct of the jury as to entitle him to a new trial. The question was presented to the trial court upon motion for a new trial, which was denied.

The court should have sustained the motion upon this ground. If the rule is established that a juror, in company with a bailiff, may separate from the body of the jury and go to a public drinking saloon, and there indulge in drinking intoxicating liquors, without the knowledge of the trial judge or the consent of the defendant, dire results may follow. If one juror may be permitted to do such acts, the whole jury may do so, and jurors disposed to such habits may readily bring jury trials into disrespect and contempt. Public policy forbids that such acts be tolerated in the trial of causes. The fact that the juror took a drink of intoxicating liquor during the trial is not so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...& Saw Mill Workers Union, No. 2575, 189 Wash. 416, 65 P.2d 1066. Cf. Yakima v. Gorham, 200 Wash. 564, 94 P.2d 180. State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am.St.Rep. 1012, questioned by State v. Navone, 180 Wash. 121, 131, 39 P.2d 384. Cunningham v. Krutz, 41 Wash. 190, 83 P. 109, ......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...& Saw Mill Workers Union, No. 2575, 189 Wash. 416, 65 P.2d 1066. Cf. Yakima v. Gorham, 200 Wash. 564, 94 P.2d 180. State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am.St.Rep. 1012, questioned by State v. Navone, 180 Wash. 121, 131, 39 P.2d 384. Cunningham v. Krutz, 41 Wash. 190, 83 P. 109, ......
  • Meldrum v. State, 788
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 8, 1915
    ...N.W. 596 (Wis.); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 226 Pa. St. 189, 75 A. 134; 134 Am. St. Rep. 1027, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1009; State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22; Gamble v. State, (Fla.) 33 So. 471; Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Ia. 494, 500; Bilton v. Territory, 1 Okla. Crim. 560, 99 P. 163; Churchil......
  • State v. Powers, 21575.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1929
    ...v. Rogan, 18 Wash. 43, 50 P. 582; State v. Barkuloo, 18 Wash. 141, 51 P. 350; State v. Mason, 19 Wash. 94, 52 P. 525; State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012; State v. Bennett, 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; State v. Le Fors, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...& Saw Mill Workers Union, No. 2575, 189 Wash. 416, 65 P.2d 1066. Cf. Yakima v. Gorham, 200 Wash. 564, 94 P.2d 180. State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am.St.Rep. 1012, questioned by State v. Navone, 180 Wash. 121, 131, 39 P.2d 384. Cunningham v. Krutz, 41 Wash. 190, 83 P. 109, ......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...& Saw Mill Workers Union, No. 2575, 189 Wash. 416, 65 P.2d 1066. Cf. Yakima v. Gorham, 200 Wash. 564, 94 P.2d 180. State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am.St.Rep. 1012, questioned by State v. Navone, 180 Wash. 121, 131, 39 P.2d 384. Cunningham v. Krutz, 41 Wash. 190, 83 P. 109, ......
  • Meldrum v. State, 788
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 8, 1915
    ...N.W. 596 (Wis.); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 226 Pa. St. 189, 75 A. 134; 134 Am. St. Rep. 1027, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1009; State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22; Gamble v. State, (Fla.) 33 So. 471; Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Ia. 494, 500; Bilton v. Territory, 1 Okla. Crim. 560, 99 P. 163; Churchil......
  • State v. Powers, 21575.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1929
    ...v. Rogan, 18 Wash. 43, 50 P. 582; State v. Barkuloo, 18 Wash. 141, 51 P. 350; State v. Mason, 19 Wash. 94, 52 P. 525; State v. Strodemier, 41 Wash. 159, 83 P. 22, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012; State v. Bennett, 71 Wash. 673, 129 P. 409; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; State v. Le Fors, ......
  • 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