State v. Turfey

Citations

• 100 Wash. 5
• 176 P. 563
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1201

Syllabus

<p>Larceny—Evidence—Sufficiency. A conviction of larceny of thirty sacks of wheat from a field is supported hy the evidence, where two witnesses who were hauling the wheat testified that thirty sacks were hauled away in the night hy unknown parties, and the sheriff traced tracks from the field to and along the county road until he overtook the defendants hauling the thirty sacks which were identified, and one of the defendants when apprehended made damaging admissions.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Evidence—Refutation op Defendant. Allowing a reputation witness to testify that he was so situated as to know defendant’s reputation and that he never heard it questioned, in effect amounts to testimony that his reputation was good.</p> <p>Same—Appeal—Harmless Error—Evidence. It is not prejudicial error to strike the testimony of a witness that defendant’s reputation was good, where the witness afterwards testified from his own knowledge to the same effect.</p> <p>Same. Error cannot he predicated upon the admission of evidence in rebuttal which might have been made a part of the state’s case in chief, where it contradicted the defendant’s testimony upon a vital detail.</p>