State v. Miller
Citations
- 78 Wash. 268
- 138 P. 896
- 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1011
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Harmless Error. Error cannot be predicated on the admission of evidence where the same fact was established by other evidence admitted without objection.</p> <p>Same. Error cannot be predicated on allowing a question which had previously been answered without objection.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence — Identity — Competency. Upon the question as to the identity of accused, it is competent for a witness to give her “best judgment;” the weight being for the jury.</p> <p>Burglary — Evidence—Possession oe Tools. In a prosecution for burglary, it is competent for a witness to describe articles found in the room of the accused and to state that they were burglars’ tools.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Aliases. In a prosecution for burglary, it is competent to show that the accused and his confederate registered under assumed names while occupying a room in which burglars’ tools were found.</p> <p>Witnesses — Privileged Communications. Upon a prosecution of one M for burglary, communications between him and an attorney are not privileged, where they occurred one month previous to M’s arrest, when M employed the attorney to secure the release of one T, his confederate, held on a general charge of suspicion, and no suggestion was made that the attorney’s employment was on behalf of M or that M was under suspicion.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Record—Statement of Facts — Amendment — Conclusiveness. Where an amendment to the statement of facts was allowed showing that an answer was stricken, it is conclusive on the appellate court, and error cannot be claimed in failing to strike the answer.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Examination op Witnesses — Duress. Accused is not entitled to object to a witness’ for the state on the ground of duress, or to a preliminary examination to determine whether the witness was under duress, the right of cross-examination being sufficient.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Harmless Error — Evidence. Error cannot be predicated on the exc
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- defendant not prejudiced by being led from jail to courtroom in handcuffs because jury not aware of it and because defendant was flight risk
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crow, Fullerton, Morris, Mount, Parker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. CalvinCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2013-05-28· cited 149×
- State v. WilsonWashington Supreme Court· 1951-05-10· cited 73×
- Gray v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1924-06-18· cited 54×
- State v. GustafsonWashington Supreme Court· 1915-10-28· cited 17×
- In re MillerWashington Supreme Court· 1924-05-07· cited 12×
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court· 1921-04-14· cited 8×
- State v. DriscollWashington Supreme Court· 1915-07-13· cited 4×
- State Of Washington v. Donald CalvinCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2013-05-28
- Ty Trenary v. Timothy Gonsalves & Christopher McmullenCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2020-03-23
- In re MillerWashington Supreme Court· 1924-12-16
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court· 1897-10-22· cited 71×
- State v. MontgomeryWashington Supreme Court· 1909-12-23· cited 51×
- Featherstone v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-12-18· cited 36×
- State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court· 1910-12-08· cited 22×
- Williams v. BlumenthalWashington Supreme Court· 1901-12-23· cited 16×
- Hartness v. BrownWashington Supreme Court· 1899-12-14· cited 13×
- State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court· 1912-04-13· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.