State v. Williams

• Citation: 13 Wash. 335,43 P. 15
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Decision Date: 30 December 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

43 P. 15

13 Wash. 335

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 30, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Skagit county; Henry McBride, Judge.

Joe Williams was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

C. C. Bitting and E. C. Million, for appellant.

George A. Joiner, for the State.

GORDON J.

An information was filed in the lower court charging the appellant with the crime of murder in the first degree. Thereafter said information was, upon motion of appellant's counsel, set aside because of imperfect verification, and, against the objection of the appellant the court permitted a new information to be filed. To this latter information appellant demurred, and the demurrer was overruled. Thereafter, the appellant refusing to plead, a plea of not guilty was entered by direction of the court, and upon trial the jury returned a verdict of murder in the second degree. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment having been overruled, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 15 years and has appealed to this court from the judgment of conviction.

The first error assigned is that the court wrongfully permitted the filing of the new or amended information. Under this head it is urged that no preliminary examination of the defendant was had before a committing magistrate. Unlike that of California and some of the other states, our constitution does not make a preliminary examination necessary. The information upon which the defendant was tried asserts all of the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction under the provisions of 2 Hill's Ann. Code, § 1204, which authorizes public offenses to be "prosecuted in the superior courts by information in the following cases: *** (4) Whenever a public offense has been committed and the party charged with the offense is not already under indictment therefor, and the court is in session and the grand jury is not in session, or has been discharged."

2. The information upon which the appellant was tried and convicted is as follows: "Joe Williams (an Indian) is accused by Geo. A. Joiner, as prosecuting attorney for Skagit county state of Washington,-the court being in session and the grand jury of said county not being in session,-of the crime of murder in the first degree, committed as follows: The said Joe Williams (an Indian), in the county of Skagit, in the state of Washington, on or about the 13th day of November, A. D. 1893, did purposely, and of his deliberate and premeditated malice, kill Jimmy Dan (an Indian), by then and there, purposely and of his deliberate, premeditated malice, stabbing and mortally wounding the said Jimmy Dan (an Indian) with a certain knife, to wit, a butcher knife, which he, the said Joe Williams (an Indian), then and there held in his hand." In support of his demurrer, appellant insists that the words "on or about," in the charging part of the information, are indefinite and insufficient. Conceding the allegation insufficient under the common-law requirements, we think the objection is not well taken under the provisions of our Code governing prosecutions by information or indictment. 2 Hill's Ann. Code, §§ 1239 ^[1] 1244; Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292; State v. Thompson (Mont.) 27 P. 349; State v. Harp (Kan. Sup.) 3 Pac. 432; People v. Littlefield, 5 Cal. 355. It is further insisted that the demurrer should have been sustained because it appears from the information that the accused is an Indian, and also that the person alleged to have been killed was an Indian; that the Swinomish Indian reservation lies within the county of Skagit; and that the court will take judicial notice of the existence and boundaries of said reservation. We do not think the objection is well taken. "Prima facie, all persons within the state are subject to its criminal laws, and within the jurisdiction of its courts. If any exception exists, it must be shown." State v. Tachanatah, 64 N.C. 614. And in 1 Bish. Cr. Law, § 154, that learned author says: "But, if the members of an Indian tribe scatter themselves among the people of a state, they become amenable to the state laws." Our investigation of the authorities leads us to conclude: First, that an Indian who has severed his tribal relations may be prosecuted in the courts of this state, without regard to whether the place of the commission of the offense is within or without the limits of a reservation; second, that an Indian who retains his tribal relations may be prosecuted in the courts of this state for offenses committed at a place not within the limits of an Indian reservation; third, that an information filed in the superior...