State v. Williams
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | GORDON, J. |
| Citation | 13 Wash. 335,43 P. 15 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1895 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
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.
[13 Wash. 336] 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 [13 Wash. 337] 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 [43 P. 16] 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: [13 Wash. 338] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shale, No. 90906–7.
...tribal land involving only non-Indians. 182 Wash.2d 887State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 144, 233 P. 327 (1925) (citing State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15(1895) ).¶ 7 The formal relationship between the states and the tribal nations changed dramatically in 1953, when Congress enacted ......
-
State v. Webb
...allegation is sufficient. (State v. Thompson, 10 Mont. 549, 27 P. 349, and cases there cited; Rev. Stats., sec. 7682; State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15; Rema v. State, 52 Neb. 375, 72 N.W. 474, and cases there cited; State v. Hoover, 31 Ark. 676.) The indictment in other respects is......
-
State v. Boyles
...juror to be convinced in his own mind before he agrees to a verdict are unnecessary and generally not to be commended. (State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. [34 Idaho 288] 15; State v. Robinson, 12 Wash. 491, 41 P. 884; Davis v. State, 63 Ohio St. 173, 57 N.E. 1099.) Appellant requested t......
-
State v. Louie, No. 36999
...and I find none in the record. The defendant should be granted a new trial. ROSELLINI, C.J., concurs. --------------- 1 State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15 (1895); State v. Anderson, 20 Wash. 193, 55 P. 39 (1898); State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P. 707 (1903); State v. Fillpot, 51 ......
-
State v. Shale, No. 90906–7.
...tribal land involving only non-Indians. 182 Wash.2d 887State v. Lindsey, 133 Wash. 140, 144, 233 P. 327 (1925) (citing State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15(1895) ).¶ 7 The formal relationship between the states and the tribal nations changed dramatically in 1953, when Congress enacted ......
-
State v. Webb
...allegation is sufficient. (State v. Thompson, 10 Mont. 549, 27 P. 349, and cases there cited; Rev. Stats., sec. 7682; State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15; Rema v. State, 52 Neb. 375, 72 N.W. 474, and cases there cited; State v. Hoover, 31 Ark. 676.) The indictment in other respects is......
-
State v. Boyles
...juror to be convinced in his own mind before he agrees to a verdict are unnecessary and generally not to be commended. (State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. [34 Idaho 288] 15; State v. Robinson, 12 Wash. 491, 41 P. 884; Davis v. State, 63 Ohio St. 173, 57 N.E. 1099.) Appellant requested t......
-
State v. Louie, No. 36999
...and I find none in the record. The defendant should be granted a new trial. ROSELLINI, C.J., concurs. --------------- 1 State v. Williams, 13 Wash. 335, 43 P. 15 (1895); State v. Anderson, 20 Wash. 193, 55 P. 39 (1898); State v. Mitchell, 32 Wash. 64, 72 P. 707 (1903); State v. Fillpot, 51 ......