State v. Moody
Citations
- 18 Wash. 165
- 51 P. 356
- 1897 Wash. LEXIS 131
Syllabus
<p>BIAS OF JUROR—IMPRESSION AS TO GUILT OF ACCUSED — HOMICIDE — INSTRUCTIONS DEFINING DEGREES — PREMEDITATION—EVIDENCE — DYING DECLARATIONS—THREATS — EXCLUSION OF DYING DECLARATION FROM JURY ROOM.</p> <p>A juror is subject to challenge for actual bias, when he has an impression as to the guilt of the accused which it would take evidence to remove, and when he does not feel able to accord accused the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven.</p> <p>In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction does not sufficiently point out the distinction between murder in the first and second degrees, nor correctly define the element of deliberation and premeditation, when it charges the jury that “as to the length of time necessary for deliberation and premeditation, you are instructed that no appreciable space of time need elapse between the forming of such intent ana the infliction of the fatal wound; all that is necessary is, that the deliberate and premeditated intent be formed before the fatal wound is inflicted. It matters not if the wound be inflicted immediately after the forming of the intent. The forming of the deliberate and premeditated intent, and the inflicting of the mortal wound, may follow each other as rapidly as successive thoughts of the mind.”</p> <p>A statement in a dying declaration that the accused had made prior threats against deceased are inadmissible in evidence, being no part of the res gestae.</p> <p>The refusal of the court to instruct that the portion of a dying declaration showing prior threats by the accused should be disregarded was prejudicial error, and cannot be presumed harmless from the fact that it was cumulative and merely corroborative of the testimony of another witness.</p> <p>Upon a trial for homicide, it is error to permit the dying declaration of deceased to go to the jury room for investigation by the jury, on the same principle that witnesses and depositions are excluded from the jury room.</p>
Judges: Dunbar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Schmunk v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1986-02-13· cited 111×
- State v. SaintcalleWashington Supreme Court· 2013-08-01· cited 96×
- State v. LordNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1938-10-08· cited 71×
- Strickland v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1928-12-11· cited 62×
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1961-04-08· cited 50×
- Parker v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1916-12-23· cited 37×
- State v. AnselmoUtah Supreme Court· 1915-05-08· cited 35×
- State v. ShirleyWashington Supreme Court· 1962-07-26· cited 22×
- State v. TikkaCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1973-04-16· cited 20×
- State v. BoyceWashington Supreme Court· 1901-04-08· cited 18×
- State v. ArataWashington Supreme Court· 1909-12-03· cited 17×
- State v. DuncanWashington Supreme Court· 1918-04-27· cited 14×
- State v. BridghamWashington Supreme Court· 1908-11-10· cited 13×
- State v. SwartzWashington Supreme Court· 1919-07-30· cited 8×
- State v. HawkinsWashington Supreme Court· 1900-11-19· cited 7×
- State v. WareWashington Supreme Court· 1910-05-31· cited 7×
- State v. WebsterWashington Supreme Court· 1899-04-18· cited 6×
- State v. FarrisWashington Supreme Court· 1901-10-04· cited 6×
- State v. SutkusSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1935-12-07· cited 5×
- State v. BabcockNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1917-08-20· cited 5×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.