State v. Tenney
| Decision Date | 14 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19554. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. TENNEY. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clarke County; Simpson, Judge.
William Tenney was convicted of attempting to have carnal knowledge of a female child 12 years of age, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. W McCredie, of Portland, Or., and McMaster, Hall & Schaefer, of Vancouver, for appellant.
Jos. E Hall and Dale McMullen, both of Vancouver, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of attempting to have carnal knowledge of a female child 12 years of age, and assigns three grounds for reversal.
He complains that the court permitted the prosecuting attorney to ask a leading question regarding a vital portion of the case, and urges that it was an abuse of discretion to permit it. The question asked was:
The record shows that after the question was answered counsel for appellant entered an objection because the question was leading. No motion to strike was made. Assuming that the objection made after the answer was of any avail, we are still of the opinion that the question was proper. The witness, a girl of 12 years, immediately prior to the quesiton in controversy had been asked if she understood what it meant for persons to have sexual intercourse, and she answered, 'No.' It is the rule that with witnesses of tender years wide latitude is allowed in examination of the witness, and we think it clear that the trial court did not abuse the discretion vested in it. State v. Hill, 45 Wash. 694, 89 P. 160; State v. Hanson, 133 Wash 527, 234 P. 28.
The second ground for reversal is that the court erred in permitting certain questions on redirect examination as to a Mrs. Shea mentioned for the first time upon cross-examination of the prosecutrix. The witness testified upon cross-examination that Mr. Bowman, the county probation officer, had taken her in charge the morning after the occurrence which was the basis of the criminal charge. A number of questions were asked as to whether when she was taken in charge by the officer she was excited and whether he had scared or frightened her. Then she was asked:
A number of questions were also asked the witness as to whether the probation officer, the sheriff, or deputy sheriff, or other officers had told her what to testify to. No question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collier
... ... matter. It is also contended that he persistently asked ... leading questions in examining the boy witnesses. In our ... opinion, this is not borne out by the record. In fact, we ... think, in view of the rule laid down in State v ... Tenney, 137 Wash. 47, 241 P. 669, and previous decisions ... therein cited, that he exercised commendable restraint ... Finally, ... it is said, in appellant's brief: 'This was a serious ... case. From the mere charge itself it could be anticipated, ... that the ... ...
-
State v. Pearson, 361
...v. Riley, 28 N.J. 188, 145 A.2d 601; Flannery v. State, 135 Tex. Cr.R. 235, 117 S.W.2d 1111, rehearing denied 22 June 1938; State v. Tenney, 137 Wash. 47, 241 P. 669; State v. Davis, 20 Wash.2d 443, 147 P.2d 940; 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 331(d), pp. 45-46. See also Stinson v. State, 125 Ark. 3......
-
State v. Ridley, 36280
...questions were justified under the circumstances. State v. Davis (1944), 20 Wash.2d 443, 446, 147 P.2d 940. See, also, State v. Tenney (1925), 137 Wash. 47, 241 P. 669. Concededly, the rcord of questions and oral answers tells but little. The gestures of the boys when asked to indicate wher......
-
Swafford v. State
...Tenn.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 154. This rule is sustained by the overwhelming weight of authority in many other jurisdictions. State v. Tenney, 137 Wash. 47, 241 P. 669; People v. Tober, 241 Cal.App.2d 66, 50 Cal.Rptr. 228; State v. Pearson, 258 N.C. 188, 128 S.E.2d 251; State v. Bennett, 158 Me......