State v. Newcomb
Citations
- 58 Wash. 414
- 109 P. 355
- 1910 Wash. LEXIS 949
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Appeal—Record—Review—Bill of Exceptions. While a statement of facts or bill of exceptions furnishes the only method of preserving exceptions for review, upon appeal from a ■conviction of murder in the first degree, the state’s motion to «trike such matter in the transcript as could only be brought up by bill or statement may be denied by the supreme court, and such exceptions reviewed as are sufficiently shown by the transcript and ■other matter not within the record.</p> <p>Courts—Jurisdiction—Departments. There being but one superior court in a county, it is not error to refuse to transfer a cause for trial from one department to another in which preliminary orders had been made, as the court has jurisdiction.</p> <p>Jurors—Selection—Jury of County—Districts. Const., art. 1, § 22, guaranteeing to accused the right to a trial before “a jury of the county,” is not violated by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 94, which provides that the county shall be divided into jury districts, and that •an equal number of the jurors shall be drawn from each district for ■service in any month.</p> <p>Constitutional Law—Ex Post Facto Law—Jurors—Selection. An act changing the method of selecting jurors in criminal cases is not an ex post facto law, as it affects only the remedy or method of procedure.</p> <p>Constitutional Law—Rights of Accused—Criminal Law—Notice of Nature of Offense—Waiver. Const., art. 1, § 22, providing that the accused shall have a right to demand a copy of the charge against him, and Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2091, providing that such copy shall be served, merely grant a privilege that is waived by plea and entering upon the trial without request for the copy, service of Which is not jurisdictional.</p> <p>Jueobs—Qualifications—Name. A juror, described in the jury list and summoned as, and answering to the name of, Hall Horton, who was examined and accepted by both sides as satisfactory without either side asking his name, was qualified and competent, notwithstan
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- upholding constitutionality of statute requiring jurors to be drawn equally from each district within a county where the crime was committed
- “[T]he words ‘jury of the county,’ as used in our constitution, have never been held to mean more than that the jurors when summoned, should come from some part of the county.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Chadwick, Fullerton, Gose, Morris, Rudkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. HusonWashington Supreme Court· 1968-04-25· cited 78×
- State v. LancilotiWashington Supreme Court· 2009-02-12· cited 23×
- State v. LorenzyWashington Supreme Court· 1910-07-09· cited 22×
- State v. RichardsWashington Supreme Court· 1917-08-13· cited 19×
- State v. McDowellWashington Supreme Court· 1911-01-03· cited 15×
- Salter v. DelmoreWashington Supreme Court· 1957-07-18· cited 13×
- State ex rel. Fugita v. MilroyWashington Supreme Court· 1913-01-21· cited 13×
- State v. TwymanWashington Supreme Court· 2001-02-22· cited 11×
- State v. WareWashington Supreme Court· 1910-05-31· cited 7×
- State v. MorrowWashington Supreme Court· 1911-04-27· cited 5×
- McCoy v. McCauleyE.D. Washington· 1937-07-08· cited 4×
- State v. HarryWashington Supreme Court· 1924-03-28· cited 3×
- State v. TwymanCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1999-09-07· cited 2×
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Stokes v. . People of the State of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals· 1873-06-10· cited 180×
- In re NewcombWashington Supreme Court· 1909-12-18· cited 35×
- State v. McPhailWashington Supreme Court· 1905-07-18· cited 34×
- State v. FairWashington Supreme Court· 1904-05-02· cited 33×
- People v. MortimerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 27×
- State v. QuinnWashington Supreme Court· 1909-12-11· cited 24×
- United States v. ChairesUnited States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida· 1889-12-19· cited 19×
- State v. AmesWashington Supreme Court· 1907-10-19· cited 17×
- State v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court· 1910-04-02· cited 16×
- Desjardins v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1909-07-22· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Lytle v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1909-08-03· cited 12×
- State v. HanoverWashington Supreme Court· 1909-10-29· cited 12×
- United States v. RichardsonU.S. Circuit Court· 1886-07-10· cited 10×
- Patchen v. Parke & Lacy Machinery Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1893-06-07· cited 4×
- People v. GillCalifornia Supreme Court· 1857-07-01· cited 4×
- Sanders v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1881-11-15· cited 4×
- United States v. KohnstammU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1864-05-30· cited 1×
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.