Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Washington Supreme Court· 3/18/1896

State v. Thompson

Citations

  • 14 Wash. 285
  • 44 P. 533
  • 1896 Wash. LEXIS 360

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINA!. LAW — EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES — INTERPRETER.</p> <p>In a prosecution for rape, it is error to admit in evidence over objection, testimony of a conversation had with defendant, in which he was alleged to have said, referring to the prosecutrix, “I suppose you want to get me in the same trouble with that old lady as you did with the little girl,” and to permit the witness to answer the further question, “ whether or not that trouble with the little girl, referred to in that conversation, related to some sexual matter between himself and the little girl.” (Hoyt, C. J., dissents).</p> <p>When an interpreter is necessary in the trial of a criminal case, he should be neither a witness nor an interested party.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • interpreter-witness was the husband of the State’s principal witness and related to the prosecutrix as well

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anders, Dunbar, Gordon, Hoyt, Scott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite 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.