State v. Glindemann

Citations

• 34 Wash. 221
• 75 P. 800
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 340

Syllabus

<p>Incest — Knowledge of Relationship — Constitutional Law— Due Process — Information Sufficient Without Charging Scienter. Bal. Code, §§ 7228, 7229, defining tbe crime of incest without including actual knowledge on tbe part of the defendant of his relationship to the particeps criminis, does not violate the fourteenth amendment as an attempt to deprive one of liberty without due process of law; and an information thereunder is sufficient without alleging scienter.</p> <p>Incest — Defense of Insanity — Evidence—Record of Guardianship — Exclusion of Cumulative Testimony. Upon the defense of insanity the exclusion of the record of the appointment of a guardian for the defendant as of unsound mind is not prejudicial error, where the record of the actual adjudication of insanity preceding the appointment was admitted, since it could have been no more than cumulative evidence.</p> <p>Same- — -Wife’s Appointment as Guardian — Competency. Such record, showing that defendant’s wife was still his guardian, is not admissible to show that she, who instigated the prosecution, was in duty bound to look after his defense, since her attitude can be better shown by other evidence.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Comment on Evidence. It is unlawful -comment on the evidence and reversible error for the court, upon a dispute as to what a witness had testified to upon a material point in the case, to declare in the presence of the jury, what such evidence was, and to state that the stenographer’s report thereof is wrong, and no distinction can be made because the remarks were not addressed to the jury.</p>