State v. Taylor, 31629
| Decision Date | 07 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31629,31629 |
| Citation | 238 P.2d 1189,39 Wn.2d 751 |
| Parties | STATE, v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Frederick b. Cohen, John E. Bowen, Bremerton, for appellant.
John C. Merkel, Farrell E. Cook, Bremerton, for respondent.
This is a bastardy proceeding under Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1970 et seq. The word 'bastardy' is not a pretty one. While the meaning it usually connotes is a bit jarring, to say the least, the word, when given a fuller or expanded import, even then hardly denotes the emotions, the conduct, and the human factors jam-packed and brimming in the muddled human-relations situation it describes. All individuals are entitled to their legal rights and their day in court. But it would seem that legally trained minds could normally find a solution to the problems involved in bastardy proceedings short of a full-fledged public airing in court of the often sensational and sometimes pornographic details, which details, even considering the mores of our times, most often can hardly be said to be complimentary to the parties concerned or in the best interests of society. Admittedly, such situations are difficult and delicate in the extreme, with at least some feelings usually at fever pitch and emotions all over the place, and with the principal litigants usually litigious-minded in no small degree. This case presents an outstanding example of an unnecessary public airing of the lurid details of the sex conduct of two adolescents--not so strangely, or incidentally, a male and a female. While the matter might have been settled out of court with credit to all counsel concerned, the trial judge deserves credit for limiting the 'trial by battle' and the activities of the 'champions' of the litigants within those boundaries permitted to him by law. The ambit of those boundaries, of course, might have been more narrowly defined by generally accepted ethical and moral considerations, by greater emphasis upon and observance of such considerations by the litigants and their families.
The trial court found that the defendant adolescent, Donald G. Taylor, was the father of the unborn child of the prosecutrix. The defendant was ordered to pay the medical costs and expenses in connection with the birth of the child; and in support of the child, the sum of $37.50 each and every month after its birth. The putative father has appealed.
On this appeal the prosecution urges that bastardy proceedings are criminal in nature; that appellant's brief was not served and filed within thirty days after the statement of facts were certified, under Rule 46, Rules of Court, 34 A.Wash.2d 50.
The weight of authority and our decision in State of Washington v. Tieman, 32 Wash. 294, 73 P. 375, would indicate that the proceeding involved is civil in nature. Respondent's contention for dismissal of the appeal is without merit.
Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling its motion for a continuance at the commencement of the trial. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 322 provides, in part, as follows: 'A motion to continue a trial on the ground of the absence of evidence shall only be made upon affidavit showing the materiality of the evidence expected to be obtained, and that due diligence has been used to procure it, and also the name and residence of the witness or witnesses. * * *'
We do not find from our examination of the record that appellant's counsel complied with the provisions of the aforementioned statute; consequently, his contentions on this point are without merit.
Appellant moved for a dismissal at the close of respondent's case, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support a judgment that appellant was the father of the prosecuting witness' unborn child. The appellant did not take the stand. The prosecutrix testified to a somewhat crowded series of acts of sexual intercourse with appellant over a period of several weeks before and several weeks after the date that the family physician advised the prosecutrix that she was pregnant. The testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses regarding promises of marriage made by appellant, the procurement of a marriage license by the two adolescents in furtherance of appellant's promise of marriage, and testimony regarding other facts, are not inconsistent with a finding that appellant was the putative father.
In Eliason v. Eliason, 10 Wash.2d 719, 721, 118 P.2d 170, 171, we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garfield
... ... showing the falsity of his testimony concerning facts ... collateral to the issues. State v. Taylor, 39 Wn.2d ... 751, 754, 238 P.2d 1189 (1951). Benjamin Garfield's ... report to the police officers of the encounter with the game ... ...
-
State v. Garfield
...a witness cannot be impeached by showing the falsity of his testimony concerning facts collateral to the issues. State v. Taylor, 39 Wn.2d 751, 754, 238 P.2d 1189 (1951). Benjamin Garfield's report to the police officers of the encounter with the game warden is collateral, and any change in......
-
Daves v. Nastos
...with "children born out of wedlock" was called a "filiation proceedings", RCW 26.24, or "bastardy proceedings", State v. Taylor, 39 Wash.2d 751, 238 P.2d 1189 (1951) and was intended only to resolve the questions of paternity, expenses of confinement and support of the unwanted child. The U......
-
State v. Kratzer, 38723
...consented to a trial by the court * * *. A filiation proceedings maintained pursuant to RCW 26.24 is a civil action. State v. Taylor, 39 Wash.2d 751, 238 P.2d 1189 (1951); State v. Tieman, 32 Wash. 294, 73 P. 375 (1903). Accordingly, if the defendant did not serve upon counsel and file with......
-
§40.6 Analysis
...continuance was proper based on nothing more than recognition of the fact that the required affidavit had not been filed. State v. Taylor, 39 Wn.2d 751,238P.2d1189 (1951); State v. Newton, 29 Wash. 373, 70 P. 31 (1902); cf. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bordeaux, 176 Wash. 592, 30P.2d385 A......