State v. Smokalem

Citations

• 37 Wash. 91
• 79 P. 603
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>Indians — Criminal Law — Offense Committed on Reservation —Indians Not Sustaining Trujal Relations — Courts—Jurisdiction over Allotted Reservation. The state courts have jurisdiction over homicides committed by one Puyallup Indian against another on the Puyallup Indian reservation, it appearing that the reservation had been allotted in severalty, all restrictions against alienation removed, and no agency or government control maintained, and that the Indians thereon had maintained no tribal relations for years, but were qualified electors and had adopted the customs, laws and precinct offices of the Whites, since Act Cong., 23 Stat. 385, conferring jurisdiction of such offenses upon the federal courts applies only to Indians sustaining tribal relations.</p> <p>Trial — Jurors—Misconduct. A conversation between a juror and a deputy sheriff, which has no relation to the case, is not misconduct amounting to ground for a new trial.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Improper Arugment — Comment on Failure to Testify. Remarks of the prosecuting attorney in argument asking why they have not explained certain incriminating circumstances, and stating that it was easy for them to do so, should be construed as addressed to the argument of opposite counsel and not a comment on the failure of the accused to testify, which is forbidden by implication by the statute.</p> <p>Same. The prosecuting attorney may comment on the failure to explain incriminating circumstances, although in part they might have been explained by the accused, when he does not comment on the failure of the accused to testify.</p>