State v. Winnett

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DUNBAR, J.
• Citation: State v. Winnett, 48 Wash. 93, 92 P. 904 (Wash. 1907)
• Decision Date: 16 December 1907
• Parties: STATE v. WINNETT.

92 P. 904

48 Wash. 93

STATE v. WINNETT.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 16, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Columbia County; Chester F. Miller Judge.

Nels Winnett was convicted of statutory rape, and he appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Will H. Fouts and Hardy E. Hamm, for appellant.

R. M Sturdevant, for the State.

DUNBAR J.

The defendant was convicted of statutory rape alleged to have been committed on the person of Bessie Braden, she being at the time of the alleged offense under the age of 18 years. Appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Between the alleged commission of the crime and the trial of the cause, appellant and Bessie Braden were married, and she was his wife at the time of the trial. All of the witnesses, except the father of Bessie, were excluded from the courtroom during the trial.

The appellant's first contention is that the court erred in overruling objections to the testimony of witness Adkins, for the reason that the statement made by the appellant to said witness antedated the alleged commission of the crime, and was neither an admission nor a threat. The disgusting obscenity of the statement testified to by Adkins will not permit its reproduction here. Suffice it to say that it showed what the mind of the appellant then was, and his intention to commit the crime alleged if opportunity presented, and was admissible under all authority.

It is also contended that the court erred in allowing Dr. Van Patten to testify, over appellant's objection, to the result of an examination made by him, whereby he ascertained and so testified, that Bessie Winnett, née Braden, was in a family way. There is nothing here tending to show that the relation of physician and patient existed between them, or that any confidential relation whatever existed. The record does not indicate, but, presumably, the examination was made at the instance of the state, and was made for the purpose of publishing the result of the examination. No confidential relation appears to be violated. The case does not come within the spirit or reason of the law which prohibits physicians from giving information acquired in attending a patient, and no error was committed in admitting the testimony objected to.

We have examined the record with reference to the other alleged errors in the admission and rejection of testimony, but, with the exception of two alleged errors, which we will hereafter refer to, there is no merit in appellant's several contentions in that regard.

During the testimony of Dr. Van Patten the prosecution asked that appellant's wife be brought into the courtroom ostensibly to be identified by the witness as the same person whom he had examined that day. This was strenuously objected to by the appellant, but the objection was overruled, and the wife was called. It is contended by the appellant that, notwithstanding the fact that the law will not permit the wife to testify against him without his consent, by this pretense she was actually made an exhibit...