Skip to main content

State v. Smith

Citations

  • 115 Wash. 405
  • 197 P. 770
  • 1921 Wash. LEXIS 769

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law (34)—Change of Venue—Discretion of Court. Under Rem. Code, § 2019, vesting the court with discretion with respect to granting a change of venue on the ground of alleged excitement or prejudice against defendant, the denial of a change by the court, after first expressing an opinion that a fair trial could not be had in the county and orally fixing a future date for determining to which county to send the case, at which time the whole question was reconsidered, would not constitute prejudicial error.</p> <p>Homicide (44)—Evidence—Admissibility—Circumstances Preceding Act. In a prosecution of certain members of the I. W. W. organization for the murder of the commander of the local company of the American Legion, evidence that another organization had made threats against the I. W. W., and a year and a half prior to the murder had assaulted their hall, was properly excluded where there was no evidence that deceased knew of the threats or made any overt act in carrying out any design of an assault upon the hall.</p> <p>Criminal Law (161)-—Evidence—Confession of Accomplice—Rebuttal—Admissibility. Where au accomplice testifies on the trial against his associates and is subject to cross-examination, proffered evidence that written statements made by him prior to the trial, substantially the same as his testimony, were procured under duress is inadmissible.</p> <p>Same (118)—Evidence—Competency—Remoteness. In a prosecution for murder by members of the I. W. W. organization, cross-examination of a witness for the state as to whether he had taken part in the deportation of a member of the organization about a year and one-half previously was properly excluded as immaterial.</p> <p>Same (118). In a prosecution of certain members of the I. W. W. organization for murder, the rejection of cross-examination of a witness for the state as to whether he was prejudiced against the organization was not prejudicial, the inquiry being remote, the organization itself not b

Judges: Mitchell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.