State v. Constantine
Citations
- 48 Wash. 218
- 93 P. 317
- 1908 Wash. LEXIS 835
Syllabus
<p>Witnesses — Credibility — Interest oe Witness — Evidence—^Admissibility. Upon a trial for assault with intent to murder, a complaint in a civil action brought by the complaining witness against the accused to recover damages is properly excluded as immaterial, where the fact of the bringing of the suit had already been shown for the purpose of affecting the interest and credibility of the complaining witnesses.</p> <p>Same — Contradiction of Witness — Criminal Law — Suppression of Evidence. Since an attempt to suppress evidence by paying money to the prosecuting witness may be shown as a corroborative circumstance against the defendant, it is error to refuse to allow the defendant to rebut evidence of such an attempt by contradicting evidence that a certain person had made such an offer on behalf of the defendant.</p> <p>' Same — Impeachment—-Laying Foundation for Contradiction. Where the prosecuting witnesses had testified to an attempt made by an emissary of the defendant to suppress his testimony by the payment of money, it is not necessary to lay the usual foundation for the impeachment of his evidence by calling attention of the witnesses to any particular conversation, time, and place, but he may be impeached by merely showing that the matter testified to is untrue.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Defenses—Insanity—Evidence. Upon a defense of insanity, where the state sought to show a rational state of mind at a certain time, by a particular statement made by defendant to his daughter, it is error to exclude evidence offered by the defendant as to his daughter’s statement to him immediately preceding.</p> <p>Same — Opinion Evidence — Mental Condition. Upon an issue as to the sanity of the accused, a nonexpert witness may give his opinion as to the mental condition of the defendant in his own language; and it is error to strike out an answer that witness could not say whether he was sane or insane but that “his mind was disordered I should say.”</p> <p>Same — Insanity
Judges: Fullerton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. SpauldingIllinois Supreme Court· 1923-10-20· cited 81×
- State v. DolanCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-07-01· cited 29×
- State v. OdellWashington Supreme Court· 1951-02-13· cited 28×
- State v. DolanCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-10-07· cited 28×
- State v. BurnetteSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1977-12-19· cited 26×
- State v. WhydeCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1981-08-17· cited 25×
- State v. ArnoldWashington Supreme Court· 1924-07-16· cited 25×
- State v. AnchetaNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1915-01-09· cited 20×
- State v. WilderCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1971-04-26· cited 18×
- State v. DeckerMissouri Court of Appeals· 1912-02-05· cited 18×
- State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1980-04-01· cited 9×
- Mojas v. McNuttWashington Supreme Court· 1952-02-07· cited 7×
- State v. BeatonWashington Supreme Court· 1919-04-08· cited 7×
- Seattle Tunnel Partners, V. Great Lakes Reinsurance (uk) Plc, RespsCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2023-04-10
- Marjorie Carroll, Appellant/cr-respondents V. Akebono Brake Corporation, Respondent/cr-appellantsCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2022-08-01
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Graves v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1893-11-06· cited 388×
- People v. Chin HaneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-09-02· cited 56×
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. McMahonIllinois Supreme Court· 1882-06-21· cited 43×
- State v. RozumNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1899-10-21· cited 40×
- State v. RollerWashington Supreme Court· 1903-01-12· cited 20×
- Houser v. AustinIdaho Supreme Court· 1886-03-03· cited 20×
- Frank Waterhouse, Ltd. v. Rock Island Alaska Min. Co.Ninth Circuit· 1899-10-19· cited 11×
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.