State v. Harsted

Citations

• 66 Wash. 158
• 119 P. 24
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1032

Syllabus

<p>Assault — Aggravated Assault — Information—Sufficiency. An information for an assault with intent to commit sodomy, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2414, subd. 6, providing that one committing an assault with intent to commit a felony shall be guilty of assault in the second degree, is sufficient without stating the precise facts constituting the attempt, although the completed felony may be committed in various ways; since it is sufficient to allege a general attempt, and the assault is charged in the language of the statute.</p> <p>Witnesses — Impeachment—Reputation. Upon a prosecution for an assault upon a boy eleven years old with intent to commit sodomy, it is not error to refuse an offer to impeach the boy by showing that a physician had reported that he had siphilis and to inquire whether a blood test had been taken; there being no direct offer to prove that he did have the disease.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Instructions. In a criminal prosecution, it is not error to reiterate instructions to the effect that the jury should free their minds from passion, prejudice and sympathy, and determine the case wholly upon the evidence without reference to the penalty.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Degree of Offense — Instructions. In a prosecution for assault in the second degree, it is not error to refuse instructions as to third degree assault, when there was no evidence calling therefor.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Reasonable Doubt — Instructions. A reasonable doubt is properly defined as a substantial doubt having reason for its basis, as distinguished from a fanciful or imaginary doubt, and such as arises from the evidence or want of evidence, and the absence of which would, after deliberation, enable one to have a settled and abiding conviction of guilt.</p>