William Garland v. State of Washington

Decision Date16 March 1914
Docket NumberNo. 226,226
Citation34 S.Ct. 456,58 L.Ed. 772,232 U.S. 642
PartiesWILLIAM H. GARLAND, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF WASHINGTON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. William H. Gorham, O. L. Willett, and Frank Oleson for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hugh M. Caldwell, John F. Murphy, and H. B. Butler for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of King county, Washington, upon an information charging him with larceny of 'a check payable for the sum of $1,000 in money.' Upon appeal the conviction was affirmed by the supreme court of Washington (65 Wash. 666, 118 Pac. 907), and the case comes here upon writ of error.

It appears that a previous information had charged the accused with the larceny of 'one thousand dollars ($1,000) in lawful money of the United States.' Upon that information he was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, was tried and convicted. A new trial was awarded, and thereafter the second information was filed, making the charge as above stated. Before trial the plaintiff in error filed a 'motion directed to second information,' containing a motion to quash, a motion to strike out, and a motion to make more definite and certain, all of which were denied. No arraignment or plea was had upon that information. The case having been called for trial and the jury having been impaneled, the plaintiff in error, by his counsel, objected to the introduction of any evidence upon the ground that the state had no right to try the plaintiff in error on the information then before the court. This general objection was overruled. No specific objection was taken before the trial to the want of formal arraignment upon the second information. The jury, at the conclusion of the trial upon the second information, returned a verdict of guilty, and sentence was passed upon the plaintiff in error.

It is apparent that the accused was tried and convicted upon an information charging an offense against the law; that he had a jury trial, with full opportunity to be heard, and that he was in fact deprived of no right or privilege in the making of his defense, unless such deprivation arises from the fact that he was not arraigned and required to plead to the second information before trial. The object of arraignment being to inform the accused of the charge against him and obtain an answer from him was fully subserved in this case, for the accused had taken objections to the second information, and was put to trial before a jury upon that information in all respects as though he had entered a formal plea of not guilty. In this view, the supreme court of Washington, following its former decisions, held that the failure to enter the plea had deprived the accused of no substantial right, and that having failed to make objection upon that ground before trial, it was waived and could not be subsequently taken. This ruling, it is contended, deprived the plaintiff in error of his liberty without due process of law within the meaning of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Due process of law, this court has held, does not require the state to adopt any particular form of procedure, so long as it appears that the accused has had sufficient notice of the accusation and an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the prosecution. Rogers v. Peck, 199 U. S. 425, 435, 50 L. ed. 256, 260, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87, and previous cases in this court there cited. Tried by this test it cannot for a moment be maintained that the want of formal arraignment deprived the accused of any substantial right, or in any wise changed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
237 cases
  • Simon v. Gov't of the V.I.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • July 29, 2015
    ...at trial and, in any event, case law does not support Simon's conclusion.Over one hundred years ago, in Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772 (1914), the Supreme Court held that "it cannot for a moment be maintained that the want of formal arraignment [on a second ......
  • Hunter v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1923
    ... ... Prall v. Burckhartt, 299 Ill. 19, 132 N.E. 280, 18 ... A. L. R. 992; Garland v. State of Washington, 232 ... U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772; Hertz v ... Woodman, ... ...
  • Jackson v. Olson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1946
    ... ... brought before the courts of a state for an offense against ... its laws, from trial and punishment, even ... Hopkins, 61 Neb ... 550, 85 N.W. 540 ...         In Garland v ... Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772, the ... ...
  • Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...601, 36 S. Ct. 696, 60 L. Ed. 1192, overruling In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 25 S. Ct. 506, 49 L. Ed. 848; Garland v. Washington, 232 U. S. 642, 646, 647, 34 S. Ct. 456, 58 L. Ed. 772, overruling Crain v. United States 162 U. S. 625, 16 S. Ct. 40 L. Ed. 1097; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Conditional Rules in Criminal Procedure: Alice in Wonderland Meets the Constitution
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 26-2, December 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...646. Crain did not last long as binding precedent. By 1914, the dissent's position commanded a unanimous Court in Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914). The Garland Court overruled Crain, evincing a sense of confidence in the overall integrity of the process that allowed it to dispense......
  • 3.3 Criminal Defense
    • United States
    • The Virginia Lawyer: A Deskbook for Practitioners (Virginia CLE) Chapter 3 Litigation: Civil and Criminal
    • Invalid date
    ...See Durham v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 415, 158 S.E.2d 135 (1967).[1285] Va. Code § 19.2-254.[1286] Id.[1287] Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914).[1288] Id.; see Jones v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 444, 506 S.E.2d 27 (1998) (Virginia Code does not require or authorize a plea of not guilt......
  • 3.3 Criminal Defense
    • United States
    • The Virginia Lawyer: A Deskbook for Practitioners (Virginia CLE) (2018 Ed.) Chapter 3 Litigation: Civil and Criminal
    • Invalid date
    ...See Durham v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 415, 158 S.E.2d 135 (1967).[653] Va. Code § 19.2-254.[654] Id.[655] Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914).[656] Id.; see Jones v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 444, 506 S.E.2d 27 (1998) (Virginia Code does not require or authorize a plea of not guilty by......
  • 9.10 The Arraignment
    • United States
    • Virginia Law and Practice: A Handbook for Attorneys (Virginia CLE) Chapter 9 Criminal Procedure in Virginia
    • Invalid date
    ...v. United States, 262 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 1958).[500] Richardson v. United States, 217 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1954).[501] Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914).[502] Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 574, 518 S.E.2d 838 (1999), rev'd on other grounds, 260 Va. 293, 533 S.E.2d 622...
  • 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