State v. Rutledge

Citations

• 37 Wash. 523
• 79 P. 1123
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 762

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Identification—Expert Evidence— Opinion of Police Officer Prom Description — Perjury. In a prosecution for perjury in having testified to an alibi for one P, charged with a certain robbery, tbe testimony of a police officer that, upon receiving a description of the guilty parties, he started out “to hunt for P and E, for the men that did the job,” is inadmissible and prejudicial error, since it amounted to an expression of his opinion, from a mere description, that P was guilty of the robbery, making the accused guilty of the perjury charged, and the matter is not a proper subject of expert evidence.</p> <p>Same — Perjury ■— Two Witnesses — Corroboration—Instructions. It is not error to refuse to instruct that no conviction could he had for perjury unless the falsity of the evidence was proved by two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances of equal weight and credibility as the testimony of another witness; since the rule is that the corroborating circumstances established by independent evidence need not equal in weight the testimony of a second witness, but need only be of such a character as to turn the scale and overcome the evidence of the defendant and the legal presumption of his innocence.</p> <p>Same — Pact oe Mobe Than One Witness. A refusal to instruct that there can he no conviction for perjury without the evidence of two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating circumstances, is not justified by the fact that there was more than one witness, since the jury is at liberty to disregard the evidence of any witness as unworthy of credence.</p>