State v. Wilson

Decision Date23 May 1912
Citation123 P. 795,68 Wash. 464
PartiesSTATE v. WILSON.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John R Mitchell, Judge.

George H. Wilson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. E. Collier and Chas. Ethelbert Claypool, both of Olympia, for appellant.

John M Wilson, of Olympia, for the State.

MOUNT J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree. He has appealed from a judgment pronounced thereon. Several errors of the trial court are assigned. We shall notice these assignments briefly in the order in which they are presented.

A witness Morris, who was a justice of the peace in the vicinity where the crime was committed, testified among other things that, after the commission of the crime, the accused came to him and asked him for protection. The witness narrated the conversation between himself and the accused, and, upon cross-examination after counsel for the accused had fully cross-examined as to the conversation, the witness was asked whether he knew that mob violence had been threatened against any person thought to be connected with the crime. The court sustained the objection to this question. There was no error in this ruling, for the witness had not testified upon the subject to which the question related. Furthermore, that question was later fully gone into with other witnesses, and therefore this particular ruling was harmless even if it might be held to be erroneous.

A witness named Jolly testified to certain conversations he had with the accused. At the close of his testimony, the defense moved the court to strike out all of the testimony of the witness. This motion was denied. It is now argued that this was error, because certain papers which were referred to as blood-stained were not in fact blood-stained. The motion was properly denied. The witness detailed conversations merely. He did not testify that the papers were blood-stained. If he had done so and was mistaken in that respect, this would not have been sufficient ground for striking out all of his testimony.

It is next argued that the court erred in permitting the domestic relations of the accused and his wife to be inquired into. This was proper in this case, for two reasons: (1) The accused himself by statements made to certain witnesses made this inquiry proper; and (2) the state based its theory of the motive for the crime upon the fact that the accused was a sexual pervert.

It is next argued that the court erred in permitting the witness Kastro to testify through an interpreter to an admission made by the accused to the witness. It is no doubt the rule that a witness who does not understand the language employed in a conversation in which a confession of guilt is made is incompetent to testify to such confession. But in this case it appeared that the witness understood the language used by the accused, but the witness was incapable of expressing himself clearly in the English language. The court satisfied himself upon this point and permitted the witness to testify through an interpreter. We think this was not error.

It is next argued that a statement or an alleged confession made by the accused to the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney and taken down in writing by a stenographer and admitted in evidence was erroneously admitted, because the statement was made under the influence of fear produced by threats, and therefore violated the constitutional provision that 'no person shall be compelled in a criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself.' The testimony on the part of the state shows, however, that the statement was made freely and voluntarily by the accused. This was denied by the defendant at the trial. Unless it appeared that the confession was made under the influence of fear produced by threats, it was the duty of the court to admit the confession or statement in evidence. Where the evidence is in conflict upon this point, the question is then for the jury. State v. Washing, 36 Wash. 485, 78 P. 1019. The court properly admitted the statement. This case is not like State v Montgomery, 56 Wash. 443, 105 P. 1035, 134 Am. St. Rep. 1119, 21 Ann. Cas. 331, and State v. Miller, 61 Wash. 125, 111 P. 1053.

It is next argued that the court erred in permitting one of the doctors to answer the following question: 'Now, doctor, I will ask you this question: Would a man with extreme outbursts of sexual passion, such as was stated in the first hypothetical question asked you, and he being deluded by voices, hallucinations to kill, commit murder to gratify his sexual passions?' It is claimed that this question was without the realm of expert testimony and called for an expression of opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. We think the subject of the question was a proper one for expert...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1951
    ...appellants' explanation of the reasons for their flight and the circumstances connected therewith was before the jury. State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Miller, 78 Wash. 268, 138 P. 896; In re Krilich's Estate, 122 Wash. 306, 210 P. 788, 215 P. 9; State v. Coles, 147 Wash.......
  • State v. Clark
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1944
    ...or statement in evidence. Where the evidence is in conflict upon this point, the question is then for the jury.' State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 467, 123 P. 795, 796. See, also, State v. Mann, 39 Wash. 144, 81 P. State v. Smythe, 148 Wash. 65, 268 P. 133; and State v. Elwood, 193 Wash. 514, ......
  • State v. Elwood
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1938
    ... ... But, if it should be presumed that ... there was such a confession, then whether it was produced by ... duress was a question upon ... [76 P.2d 987.] ... which the evidence was in dispute, and the question was for ... the jury to determine. State v. Wilson, 68 Wash ... 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Smythe, 148 Wash. 65, 268 ... Pa. 133 ... It is ... next contended that the court erred in giving instruction No ... 13. But this instruction is not set out in the ... appellant's brief, as required by rule of ... ...
  • State v. Winters, 31694
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1951
    ...a confession was obtained under the influence of fear produced by threats. State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 106 P. 133; State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757; State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2d 606. * * In State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT