State v. Kellogg

Citations

• 91 Wash. 665
• 158 P. 344
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1109

Syllabus

<p>Seduction — Unchastity—Evidence—Admissibility. In a prosecution for seduction, a witness for the defense called to establish the unchastity of the prosecuting witness, who admitted that he had tried to have sexual intercourse with her, may be properly asked to state what he did.</p> <p>Witnesses — Impeaching Own Witness — Subprise. Where, in a prosecution for seduction of one of previous chaste character, the defense is surprised by the statement of its own witness that he had not had sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness, the defense should be allowed to interrogate the witness as to former variant statements, and lay the foundation for impeachment by such statements.</p> <p>Morris, C. J., and Fullerton, J., dissent.</p>