State v. Baker
Citations
- 67 Wash. 595
- 122 P. 335
- 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1218
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law- — Trial—Misconduct of Jury. In a prosecution for violation of the local option law, it is not misconduct on the part of the jury that, on an issue as to the intoxicating character of the liquors, the jurors smelled and tasted the contents of samples of the liquor, received in evidence as exhibits, and taken into the jury room without objection.</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors — Sales — Local Option — Character of Liquors — Evidence—Admissibility. In a prosecution for selling liquor in a dry unit in violation of the local option law, samples of liquor taken from defendant’s place of business a few days after the unlawful sale, are admissible in evidence as tending to show the character of his business, the samples being in the same condition as when taken.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. In a prosecution for violating the local option law, it is harmless to receive in evidence the certificate of a Federal internal revenue collector that a special tax stamp had been issued to defendant as a retail liquor dealer, where defendant testified that he had purchased such a tax stamp.</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors — Local Option — Sales—Evidence—Admissibility. In a prosecution for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors shipped into dry territory, expense bills and freight receipts issued by a railway agent tending to show shipments of casks of bottled beer from a brewery to defendant, are admissible in evidence, although only carbon copies, where the originals had been delivered to the defendant and could not be produced, and the casks had been delivered to him by a drayman.</p> <p>Evidence — Opinion—Experts—Intoxicating Liquors. An expert chemist may testify as to his analysis of beer, and state his opinion as to whether it was intoxicating.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Misconduct of Judge. It is not prejudicial misconduct on the part of the court to call a deliberating jury at about 9 o’clock Saturday evening and to intimate that he might be required to kee
Judges: Crow
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. FoellIdaho Supreme Court· 1923-08-10· cited 12×
- State v. DascenzoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1924-05-31· cited 10×
- State v. KichinkoWashington Supreme Court· 1922-11-16· cited 6×
- State v. ElmersSupreme Court of Iowa· 1924-11-19· cited 3×
- State v. BurchamWashington Supreme Court· 1920-01-27· cited 2×
- State v. EmmonsOregon Supreme Court· 1912-11-26· cited 2×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1903-05-30· cited 20×
- People v. KinneyMichigan Supreme Court· 1900-06-18· cited 17×
- State v. LewisWashington Supreme Court· 1903-04-06· cited 14×
- Klepfer v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1890-01-15· cited 14×
- Sandefur v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1911-05-16· cited 14×
- State v. McCaffertySupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1874-07-01· cited 7×
- State v. LashSupreme Court of Missouri· 1910-02-12· cited 3×
- State v. WillsMissouri Court of Appeals· 1904-04-12· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.