State v. Le Pitre

Citations

• 54 Wash. 166
• 103 P. 27
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 964

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Trial-—Witnesses—-Indorsement on Information. Under Bal. Code, § 6832, requiring the names of known witnesses to be indorsed upon the information, it is not reversible error to allow the prosecuting attorney to indorse the names of witnesses at the trial without showing that they were unknown to him before, where no continuance was asked by the accused.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Punishment—Habitual Criminals. The habitual criminal statute simply provides an increased penalty for the last offense and does not violate any constitutional right of the accused.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Habitual Criminals- — Identity—Evidence—Sufficiency. The habitual criminal statutes authorizing the jury to find that the accused is an habitual criminal from the record of prior convictions “or” other competent evidence, is not objectionable as authorizing the finding from such records alone without proof of identification.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Harmless Error. One convicted of being an. habitual criminal is not prejudiced by erroneous admission of identity as to crimes committed outside the state, where there was sufficient evidence of other convictions in this state.</p> <p>Same — Evidence of Identity — Prima Facie Case. Upon a conviction of being an habitual criminal, the record of previous convictions showing the same, is 'sufficient prima facie evidence of identity, when received without objection.</p>