State v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 07 January 1921
• Docket Number: 16030.
• Citation: 194 P. 553,113 Wash. 696
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. THOMPSON.

194 P. 553

113 Wash. 696

STATE v. THOMPSON.

No. 16030.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 7, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alsten, Judge.

Robert Thompson was convicted of the crime of carnally knowing and abusing a female child of the age of 12 years, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. C Dailey and A. E. Dailey, both of Everett, for appellant.

Thos A. Stiger, of Everett, for the State.

TOLMAN J.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of carnally knowing and abusing a female child of the age of 12 years. From a judgment on the verdict, and a sentence of not less than 5 years confinement in the state penitentiary, he appeals.

The information charged that the crime was committed on the 8th day of September, 1918, while the proof was to the effect that act occurred on September 22, 1918. Appellant objected to the introduction of evidence tending to show that the act was committed at a time subsequent to that charged in the information, and assigns as error the overruling of his objection. The information was filed April 22, 1919, and since there was no question of an alibi raised by the defense, the act might be proven to have occurred at any time before the filing of the information and within the limitation period fixed by law. State v. Wilson, 9 Wash. 16, 36 P. 967; State v. Hoshor, 26 Wash. 653 67 P. 386.

Complaint is next made that the trial court, in passing upon the admissibility of evidence, sought to be elicited from the prosecuting witness on cross-examination, as to her previous relations with another man, advised the jury that such evidence should be considered solely for the purpose of determining the weight which should be given to her testimony. Since the evidence was finally admitted without objection, the only serious complaint is that this constituted on oral instruction to the jury. We cannot so hold. Evidence is frequently admissible for a limited purpose only, and it is the duty of the trial court, when his attention is called thereto, to so advise the jury at the time such evidence is received and if this be done in a proper manner, as it was here, the instruction, if it can be so called, is not such an instruction as the statute requires to be in writing, nor is it a comment on the evidence in the forbidden sense.

Lastly if is contended that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. We have carefully...