State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 October 1897
• Citation: 18 Wash. 47,50 P. 580
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

50 P. 580

18 Wash. 47

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 22, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Whitman county; William McDonald, Judge.

A. F Williams was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed.

John F Dillon, for appellant.

John W Mathews, for the State.

REAVIS, J.

Appellant was convicted in the superior court of Whitman county of the crime of burglary. The prosecuting attorney appears on behalf of the state, and moves to dismiss the appeal because appellant's brief was not filed in due time. It appears that the time within which appellant's brief ought to have been filed expired on the 2d day of June, 1897, and that the brief was not filed until the 23d day of the same month. But the counsel who appeared for the defendant at the trial had removed from the state before the brief was filed. The defendant was at the time confined in jail, and, so soon as he learned that the brief was not filed within the proper time, procured it to be filed. The question not being one of the jurisdiction of the appeal, the appellant's excuse for failure to file his brief within the proper time is deemed sufficient, and the motion to dismiss denied.

The first error assigned by appellant is the refusal of the court to grant a continuance on appellant's application because of the absence of a material witness for appellant. The affidavit, while rather general in its statement of the facts, seems to be sufficient to have entitled appellant to further time. But, as this question is not likely to arise upon a new trial, it is not necessary to further notice this objection than to observe that section 22, art. 1, of the state constitution, guaranties to persons prosecuted for crime the right to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in their behalf, and under this constitutional guaranty the accused has the right to compulsory process to procure the physical attendance of the witness at the trial.

It appears that during the trial the defendant was brought into court, and kept there, in manacles, until, upon protest of defendant's counsel, the manacles were finally removed, but after a considerable period of time had elapsed, and, further, that during the progress of the trial, and when it was very dark out of doors, at the state's request a view of the premises which were alleged to have been entered burglariously by the defendant was ordered by the court, and that, in the presence of the jury manacles were placed upon the defendant, and he was ordered by the court to go with the jury to the place of the alleged burglary, and while so manacled he went with the jury a distance of three or four blocks from the court house, and returned to the court, when the trial proceeded, and defendant was permitted to remain manacled until, at his request, the court ordered the manacles removed. It also further appears from the record that one Bates and one Helen who were jointly charged with the same crime as the defendant, had been theretofore tried in the court, and found guilty; that, at defendant's request, Bates was called to testify as a witness for defendant, and when Bates was brought into the court room to testify, at the request of the prosecuting attorney, Helen was brought into court to remain in the presence of the jury during the time that Bates was testifying; that, after Bates had given his testimony, he and Helen were manacled together in the presence of the court and jury; and that defendant protested against Bates and Helen being allowed to remain in the court room, in the presence of the jury, manacled, and requested the court to order the manacles removed. The court refused the request. It was the ancient rule at common law that a prisoner brought into the presence of the court...