State v. Peacock

Citations

• 58 Wash. 41
• 107 P. 1022
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 885

Syllabus

<p>Homicide—Evidence—Dying Declaration. A dying declaration made December 10th does not identify with sufficient certainty a prior written statement signed and sworn to December 3d, at a time when deceased was seriously ill but not under a sense of impending death, where, a few hours before death, the deceased, in answer to questions, stated that the “statements made to Mr. S. (the notary) a week ago today” were true; and the same is inadmissible although the statement of December 10th was made under a sense of impending death, in view of the rule that dying declarations must be received with great caution.</p> <p>Evidence—Hypothetical Questions—-Discretion. It may not be an abuse of discretion to permit physicians to answer hypothetical questions although some of the facts assumed are based upon meager evidence.</p> <p>.Appeal — Review — Instructions—Requests. Error cannot be based upon the refusal to give certain instructions where no request therefor was made.</p>