State v. Unosawa
| Decision Date | 02 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 30055. |
| Citation | 29 Wn.2d 578,188 P.2d 104 |
| Parties | STATE v. UNOSAWA. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
James M. Unosawa was convicted of abortion and manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Donald A McDonald, Judge.
Monheimer Schermer & Mifflin, of Seattle, for appellant.
Lloyd Shorett and Duane T. Shinn, both of Seattle, for respondent.
Appellant was charged, by information, with the crimes of abortion, manslaughter, and murder in the second degree, as follows:
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each count. A motion was made in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial. The motion for a new trial was denied, as was the motion in arrest of judgment as to counts I and II, but was granted as to count III.
Buelah LeClair was an unmarried, half-breed Indian girl, about eighteen years of age. She was strong, healthy, and up to the time of the events which are about to be related, performed all kinds of housework--washing clothes, ironing, cooking meals, and taking care of her sister's babies. She attended shows and dances, and never complained of any sickness.
On November 23, 1945 Beulah contacted Leo Mayo, a Filipino, who was related by marriage to her sister. She told him that she was five months pregnant, and 'wanted to get rid of the baby.' He took her to Seattle, where he got in touch with Mrs. Gaudia, a Filipino nurse, employed at Providence Hospital. Mrs. Gaudia called Dr. Unosawa, a licensed osteopathic physician and surgeon, whom she had known for fifteen years, and made arrangements for an appointment.
On November 29th she took Beulah and Mrs. Louise Adams, Buelah's sister, to the doctor. At this time, Mayo gave Mrs. Gaudia two hundred fifty dollars. She gave one hundred fifty dollars to the doctor, and returned one hundred dollars to Mayo.
The doctor examined Beulah in the presence of Mrs. Gaudia. Mrs. Adams, the sister, remained in an outer room. The doctor and Mrs. Gaudia testified that, by the use of a stethoscope, they could detect life in the fetus at that time. The doctor testified that he packed the vagina in order to prevent a miscarriage.
They went back to the doctor's office on Saturday, December 1st, arriving about 9:30 a. m. Mrs. Gaudia and Beulah again went into the doctor's office, the sister remaining outside in the waiting room. The sister testified that, between the two trips to the doctor's office, there had been no change in Beulah's condition. She was happy and healthy, and in the evenings they had gone to shows together. The sister said that she had slept with Beulah, and had been present when she took a bath, and had at no time noticed any packing.
Mrs. Gaudia and the doctor testified, however, that upon her return to the office they noticed a distinct change in Beulah's condition; that she was wan and highly nervous; that she told them she had deliberately fallen down in order to bring on a miscarriage, and that when the packing was removed she hemorrhaged considerably. The doctor testified that he could not then detect a heartbeat in the fetus, and concluded that life was extinct. He repacked the vagina, but this did not stop the hemorrhaging. He then decided that the placenta was displaced; that an emergency thereby existed requiring the removal of the fetus in order to save the girl's life.
He said that he then prepared to remove the placenta, and as much of the fetus as he possibly could. In order to make the removal of the fetus easier, it was broken up into pieces and removed.
Mrs. Gaudia left at 2:30 p. m., to go back to work. From then on the doctor worked alone. During all of this time, the sister waited in the outer room. After the operation, the girl was put to bed in a small adjoining room. Finally, about 6:30 p. m., the doctor and his wife and the sister took Beulah down the back steps to his car, and drove Beulah and her sister to their hotel. That night, about 11:00 p. m., the doctor drove Mrs. Gaudia to the girls' hotel. He remained in the car, and she went up and took Beulah's temperature, which was 99 degrees. The next morning, about 11:30, Mrs. Gaudia and the doctor went back to the hotel. They both went up to the room, and found that Beulah was then definitely worse. Her temperature was 103 degrees. An ambulance was called, and arrangements made to take her to Providence Hospital. She was admitted to the hospital at 1:20 p. m., and died at 1:50 p. m.
A few days later the doctor was taken to the police station for questioning. He gave statements to Mr. Shorett and Captain Mahoney of the police department. These statements were in general quite similar to his testimony at the trial. He did not then, however, mention that the girl had tried to abort herself.
On Christmas Eve, 1945, a messenger came to Captain Mahoney's door with a beautiful azalea plant and an envelope containing two hundred dollars in twenty dollar bills, and the following note:
'Most respectfully yours----
'Dr. James M. Unosawa'
Captain Mahoney immediately called the Prosecutor, and the chief of detectives. As a result of this, the doctor and his attorney were called to the prosecutor's office a few days later. The doctor explained that he had sent the plant and the money, not as a bribe, but merely as a token of good will at Christmas time. The money was returned to the doctor.
In justice to Mr. Schermer, we wish to state that this action of his client was done entirely without his knowledge and consent, and that he at all times conducted himself in an honorable and ethical manner.
Then, March, shortly prior to the time the case was to go to trial, the doctor sent Mrs. Gaudia to Leo Mayo with seventy-five dollars, and the following, which he had typed in his office:
'Why the girl came over to see you?
'(A) She took medicine all the time. Fell down many times. Tried to get rid of the baby inside.
'Lately she started to bleed more and getting weaker. This made her scare and worry, so she came over to me to help her to take over to a doctor.
'Why did you go to Mrs. Gaudia? '(A) She is my friend and a good nurse. So she might help me getting a doctor.
'About the money
'The girl asked me, so I gave to her.
'Her physical conditions.
The doctor testified that this was done in entirely good faith; that it was his understanding of the situation; and that he thought that it was also Mayo's understanding.
On December 3, 1945, Dr. Gale Wilson performed an autopsy on the body of Beulah LeClair. No useful purpose would be served in detailing his testimony. He did testify, however, that part of the fetus remained in the body, and that the cervix was ruptured. He concluded that an incomplete abortion had been performed with the use of an old-fashioned hook or sponge forceps.
Misconduct is charged on the part of the deputy prosecutor in his opening statement in which he said: 'The autopsy will show one of the worst cases of butchery----' Immediately, the following occurred:
'The Court: State the ultimate facts.
'Mr. Schermer: I ask the jury be instructed to disregard it.
'The Court: Yes, don't argue it now.
It is argued that the reference to 'butchery' was highly prejudicial to this appellant because of the fact that he was a Japanese, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Borrero
...to do so is ground for reversal. Leach, 113 Wash.2d at 688, 782 P.2d 552; Royse, 66 Wash.2d at 557, 403 P.2d 838; State v. Unosawa, 29 Wash.2d 578, 188 P.2d 104 (1948); Leonard v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 381, 391, 7 P. 872 In Leach the charging document notified the defendant he was accuse......
-
State v. Kjorsvik
...P. 6 (1925); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); State v. Taes, 5 Wash.2d 51, 104 P.2d 751 (1940); State v. Unosawa, 29 Wash.2d 578, 188 P.2d 104 (1948) (raised for first time on appeal); State v. Moser, 41 Wash.2d 29, 246 P.2d 1101 (1952) (raised for first time on second......
-
State v. Hopper
...presumption in favor of a pleading charging a crime. Such a pleading must be definite and certain." Moser followed State v. Unosawa, 29 Wash.2d 578, 589, 188 P.2d 104 (1948), in its holding that the "common understanding" rule could not be applied unless it had first been determined that th......
-
State v. Leach
...in, State v. Braithwaite, 92 Wash.2d 624, 600 P.2d 1260 (1979); State v. Moser, 41 Wash.2d 29, 246 P.2d 1101 (1952); State v. Unosawa, 29 Wash.2d 578, 188 P.2d 104 (1948). In Unosawa, without citation to further authority, the rule is [W]e must first determine whether or not the information......