State v. Engstrom

Citations

• 86 Wash. 499
• 150 P. 1173
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1033

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Preservation of Grounds — Exceptions to Instructions. Error cannot be based upon tbe refusal or failure of the trial court to give an instruction on tbe subject of tbe testimony of an accomplice, where tbe record fails to show any exceptions called to tbe attention of tbe court at or before tbe motion for a new trial was beard.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial — Misconduct of Counsel — Argument. Prejudicial error cannot be based on misconduct of state’s counsel in argument to tbe jury wbicb did not pass beyond tbe bounds of legitimate argument, and much of wbicb was called out in reply to improper argument on tbe part of counsel for accused.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Accomplices—Corroboration. A conviction may be sustained on tbe uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, without any precautionary instruction, if none was requested.</p> <p>Appeal — Statement op Pacts — Certificate — Supplemental Statement. A mandate to the trial court to correct or supplement its statement of facts, being discretionary, will not be issued where there is no reasonable certainty that tbe appellant is being denied any rights; as when it appears that tbe trial judge refused a supplemental statement as to tbe taking of alleged exceptions, on tbe ground that be did not so remember tbe facts, and that there was no record from wbicb tbe truth could be ascertained; especially where there was lack of diligence in seeking tbe mandate.</p>