State v. Simmons

Citations

• 52 Wash. 132
• 100 P. 269
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1086

Syllabus

<p>Rape — Evidence—Conduct at Other Times. In a prosecution for statutory rape, evidence is admissible of the prosecuting witness’ conversations with accused at other times than the one upon which the state elected to rely.</p> <p>Evidence — Handwriting—Identification. A witness who has seen a party write and knows his handwriting is competent to identify letters written by him.</p> <p>Criminal Law — -Appeal—Harmless Error — Rape. In a prosecution for rape, the erroneous admission of evidence that defendant was married and that the prosecutrix was acquainted with his wife, is harmless.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Evidence. Error in the admission of evidence otherwise fully established is harmless.</p> <p>Same — -Witnesses—Competency. The competency of a physician who testified to the pregnancy of a prosecutrix is immaterial where the fact of pregnancy was not disputed.</p> <p>Same — Harmless Error — Evidence. It is harmless error to exclude impeaching evidence as to a witness who testified to a mere negative, and to no affirmative fact prejudicial to the appellant.</p> <p>Evidence — Handwriting—Instructions. It is proper to refuse to instruct that a jury may not resort to a comparison of any writing not admitted by the defendant to be genuine, with any other writings not admitted by him, for the purpose of determining the genuineness of any or either of such writings.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions. It is not error to refuse requested instructions covered in the general charge.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial. The jury may take the exhibits to the jury room, under Bal. Code, § 5004.</p> <p>Rape — New Trial — Affidavits—Sufficiency. It is not a ground for a new trial in a prosecution for rape that it is shown by affidavits that the ordinary period of gestation had elapsed since the act and the prosecutrix had not yet been delivered of her child.</p> <p>New Trial — Affidavit — Impeaching Verdict — Evidence of Handwriting. That two jurors were not satisfied with evidence