State v. Wroth
| Decision Date | 27 November 1896 |
| Parties | STATE v. WROTH. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; John C. Denney, Judge.
William Wroth was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed.
Melvin G. Winstock, Allen & Headlee, and Frank B Ingersoll, for appellant.
J. W Heffner and Arthur W. Hawks, for the State.
Appellant was charged, in an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Snohomish county, with the crime of murder in the first degree. He was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of 10 years. Having moved for a new trial, his motion was denied, and he has appealed.
Upon the oral presentation of this cause, counsel for the appellant waived all assignments of error save one, which relates to the alleged misconduct of the presiding judge. Counsel for the appellant have sought to show, by affidavit and by purported minutes of the clerk of the superior court that after the trial had closed, and the jury had retired for deliberation, they requested to see the judge, and thereupon the judge left the bench, and went into the jury room, and closed the door, and thereafter, returning to the court room, stated to counsel for the prosecution and defense that the jury desired to be further instructed upon the subject of reasonable doubt. The affidavits and minutes cannot be received or considered by this court for the purpose of showing what occurred below. The lower court declined to certify to the facts as claimed by the appellant, but certified an amended bill prepared by counsel for the state, and the bill so certified must be accepted by this court. It is therein stated that, at the close of the argument, "the jury were duly and regularly instructed by the court, and retired to deliberate on their verdict, in charge of the officer of the court; and soon thereafter the jury, through their bailiff, requested to see the judge, and the said judge, being the same judge who tried the cause, went to the jury room, and stood in the doorway, with the door to said jury room partly opened; that thereafter the said judge returned, and informed the counsel for the defendant and state that the jury, through its foreman, had requested that the said judge repeat to them the instruction given on reasonable doubt." It is contended by the appellant's counsel that this constituted such misconduct on the part of the trial judge as requires a reversal, and we think the contention must be sustained. In the discharge of his official duty, the place for the judge is on the bench. As to him, the law has closed the portals of the jury room, and he may not enter. The appellant was not obliged to follow the judge to the jury room in order to protect his legal rights, or to see that the jury was not influenced by the presence of the judge; and the state cannot be permitted to show what occurred between the judge and the jury at a place where the judge had no right to be, and in regard to which no official record could be made.
But learned counsel for the state insist that the judge said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Irby
...the fault of the accused is conclusively presumed to be prejudicial,” Shutzler, 82 Wash. at 367, 144 P. 284 (citing State v. Wroth, 15 Wash. 621, 47 P. 106 (1896)), it is clear that in this respect Shutzler is no longer good law. In State v. Caliguri, 99 Wash.2d 501, 664 P.2d 466 (1983), th......
-
State v. Rice
...appear and defend himself in person and by counsel. See State v. Shutzler, 82 Wash. 365, 367-68, 144 P. 284 (1914); State v. Wroth, 15 Wash. 621, 623-24, 47 P. 106 (1896). In Caliguri, we concluded that such error is not conclusively prejudicial if a third party was present at the time of t......
-
State v. Caliguri
...a conclusive presumption of prejudice arising from improper communications between the judge and jury ( see, e.g., State v. Wroth, 15 Wash. 621, 623-24, 47 P. 106 (1896)), most of those cases have involved private conversations between judge and jury ( see, e.g., State v. Wroth, supra at 62......
-
People v. Bradford
...on other grounds in People v. Valles (1979) 24 Cal.3d 121, 127, 154 Cal.Rptr. 543, 593 P.2d 240, quoting State v. Wroth (Wash. 1896) 15 Wash. 621, 623, 47 P. 106 (Wroth), overruled on other grounds in State v. Caliguri (Wash.1983) 99 Wash.2d 501, 508-509, 664 P.2d Judge Thompson entered the......
-
Table of cases
...v. White, 169 Conn 223, 363 A2d 143 (1975), §9:35.8 State v. Woodfin, 539 So2d 645 (La. App2dCir. 1989), §9:65 State v. Wroth (Wash. 1896) 15 Wash. 621, 623, §9:92 State v. Zell , 491 N.W.2d 196, 197 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992), §9:38.4 Steen v. City of Los Angeles (1948) 31 Cal.2d 542, 190 P2d 93......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...(1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 75, 81, overruled on other grounds in People v. Valles (1979) 24 Cal.3d 121, 127, quoting State v. Wroth (Wash. 1896) 15 Wash. 621, 623 ( Wroth ), {Slip Opn. Page 28} overruled on other grounds in State v. Caliguri (Wash. 1983) 99 Wn.2d 501, 508-509.) fn. 10.” Bradford, ......