State v. White

• Decision Date: 14 December 1920
• Docket Number: 16042.
• Citation: 194 P. 390,113 Wash. 416
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WHITE.

194 P. 390

113 Wash. 416

STATE v. WHITE.

No. 16042.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 14, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C. Bell, Judge.

Isom White was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph H. Smith, of Everett, for appellant.

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

MAIN, J.

The defendant was charged by information with the crime of murder in the first degree. To this information he entered the following plea: (a) That he was not guilty; (b) that at the time of the alleged crime and for a long time prior thereto he was insane and mentally irresponsible; and (c) that such insanity and mental irresponsibility had continued and still existed. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The jury also returned a special verdict as follows:

'Q. Shall the defendant, Isom White, suffer punishment by death? Answer. Yes.'

From the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendant appeals. The first point is that the court erred in permitting two doctors, after having examined the appellant in the reception room in the jail, to testify to his mental condition, based upon such examination. The examination took place the day the trial opened. It was at the request of the prosecuting attorney, and without the knowledge or consent, so far as the record shows, of the attorney for the appellant. The doctors in testifying based their opinion, not only upon the physical examination, but upon answers to questions which had been asked of the appellant, and which he had answered. The appellant did not object to the examination or to the answering of the questions which were propounded to him. There is nothing in the record to show that he was unwilling either to answer questions, or that the examination take place. The doctors did not testify to any statement made by him to them, but, as already indicated, based their opinion as to his mental condition upon the physical examination, as well as upon the answers which he made to the questions. It is claimed that this testimony violated section 9, article 1 of the Constitution of this state, which provides, among other things, that 'no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself. * * *' There is nothing in the record brought to this court which would indicate that the appellant was compelled or required to do anything so far as the examination was concerned which he was not entirely willing to do. The constitutional provision is not applicable to the present facts. The case of State v. Spangler, 92 Wash. 636, 159 P. 810, upon its facts is very similar to this case, and it was there held that it was not error to permit a doctor to testify as to the defendant's mental condition after having examined him in the county jail.

The second point suggested is that the testimony was inadmissible on the further ground that it referred to the appellant's condition at the time of the trial, and not at the time of the commission of the crime. To this objection there are two answers: First, the testimony was not objected to for this reason; and, second, under the plea entered by the appellant his mental condition at the time of the trial, as well as at the time of the commission of the crime, was in issue. The trial point is that after the jury had been sworn to try the case, and after some testimony had been taken, three men none of whom were officers of the court, were permitted by the bailiff in charge of the jury to enter the jury room. The...