State v. Warwick
Decision Date | 28 February 1919 |
Docket Number | 15007. |
Citation | 178 P. 977,105 Wash. 634 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. WARWICK. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. I. Ronald, Judge.
Charles Warwick was convicted of assault in the third degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial.
Thomas R. Horner, of Seattle, for appellant.
Alfred H. Lundin and Joseph A. Barto, both of Seattle, for the State.
The defendant in this case was charged with the crime of assault in the third degree. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendant appeals.
On July 21, 1917, and for some time prior thereto, the appellant was and had been living at the Hotel Russell, in Seattle. On the night of that day the appellant returned to his room at about 12 o'clock, and found therein the complaining witness and a woman. The complaining witness he had not known prior to that time, but the woman apparently was not a stranger to him. They had entered the room without permission from the appellant. The conversation which took place in the room need not be here detailed, further than to say that it was not of an ill nature. After a few minutes the appellant left the room to go to another part of the building, and the complaining witness left, apparently to leave the building. The room was on the second floor of the hotel, and was reached by a stairway. A little later the complaining witness and the appellant met near the head of the stairs. The appellant testifies that he said to the complaining witness 'I thought you had gone home,' and that thereupon the complaining witness applied to him a vile epithet and struck at him, and knocked off his glasses, and The complaining witness testified that when they met at the head of the stairs the defendant applied to him a vile epithet and told him to 'get down the stairs,' and he further testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wash v. Sublett
...in our case law that a defendant show prejudice before we would review an unobjected-to constitutional error. See State v. Warwick, 105 Wash. 634, 637, 178 P. 977 (1919) (citing State v. Crotts, 22 Wash. 245, 60 P. 403 (1900); State v. Jackson, 83 Wash. 514, 145 P. 470 (1915); Eckhart v. Pe......
-
State v. Henderson
...v. Peterson, 73 Wash.2d 303, 306, 438 P.2d 183 (1968); State v. Haynes, 71 Wash.2d 136, 139, 426 P.2d 851 (1967); State v. Warwick, 105 Wash. 634, 637, 178 P. 977 (1919). 3 In such cases, we allow review of error affecting constitutional issues where no proper exception to the instruction w......
-
State v. Louie
...Practice and Procedure 51.16W, supra, are clearly distinguishable. State v. Crotts, 22 Wash. 245, 60 P. 403 (1900) and State v. Warwick, 105 Wash. 634, 178 P. 977 (1919) each involve a clear and direct judicial comment on conflicting evidence. State v. Marsh, 126 Wash. 142, 217 P. 705 (1923......
-
State v. Richard
...(1900); State v. Jackson, 83 Wash. 514, 145 P. 470 (1915); Eckhart v. Peterson, 94 Wash. 379, 162 P. 551 (1917); and State v. Warwick, 105 Wash. 634, 178 P. 977 (1919). Second, a related approach is taken in the recent case of State v. Lampshire, 74 Wash.2d 888, 447 P.2d 727 (1968), where i......