State v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 18 March 1896
• Citation: 44 P. 533,14 Wash. 285
• Parties: STATE v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

44 P. 533

14 Wash. 285

STATE v. THOMPSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 18, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Emmett N. Parker, Judge.

John Thompson was convicted of rape, and appeals. Reversed.

Fred G Merrill, for appellant.

B. W Coiner, for the State.

GORDON J.

Appellant was tried and convicted, in the superior court of Pierce county, upon an information charging him with the crime of rape. Numerous grounds of error are assigned, but reliance is mainly had on certain rulings of the lower court in admitting testimony over appellant's objections and in charging the jury. We have reached the conclusion that the conviction must be set aside, and a new trial ordered because of error in the admission of evidence. During the examination of Mrs. King, a witness for the state, she was permitted, over the objection of appellant's counsel, to relate a conversation occurring between herself and appellant subsequent to the time of the commission of the alleged offense, in the course of which the appellant said to her: "I suppose you want to get me in the same trouble with that old lady [referring to the prosecutrix] as you did with the little girl." It appears that the prosecutrix is the aunt of the witness, and also lived with her. Thereupon the following question was asked: "You may state, Mrs. King, whether or not that trouble with the little girl, referred to in that conversation, related to some sexual matter between himself and the little girl." And, the objection of appellant's counsel having been overruled, the witness answered, "Yes, sir." Counsel for the state insisted below that this was competent for the purpose of showing that appellant knew "the nature of the trouble that he was about to get into," although no charge had at that time been preferred. We think that the objection should have been sustained, and the testimony excluded. The condition of the record did not justify it, and it needs no argument to demonstrate that its admission could not fail to prejudice the minds of the jurors against the appellant. It had no legitimate bearing on the only question which the jury were called upon to determine, and was better calculated to inflame their passions than persuade their judgments. The state "demands justice, not victims"; and, considering the character of the accusation, it was peculiarly the duty of the trial court to see that the rights of the accused were rigidly guarded, and that all attempts to prejudice the jury against him were promptly suppressed. "When incompetent evidence...