State v. Ulsemer

Citations

• 24 Wash. 657
• 64 P. 800
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 587

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINAL LAW-CIRCULATING INDECENT PICTURE-SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION.</p> <p>An information which alleges that defendant “knowingly”1 distributed a certain indecent picture sufficiently charges knowledge on his part of the indecency of the picture.</p> <p>SAME-INSTRUCTIONS.</p> <p>Where the information charged defendant with knowledge of the indecency of a picture circulated by him, an instruction by the court that “The sole questions for the jury to determine are, Did the defendant knowingly distribute the picture as charged in the information? and was this picture indecent?” are sufficiently specific as to the law of the case.</p> <p>SAME-EVIDENCE OF USAGE,</p> <p>In a prosecution for distributing an indecent picture, where the statute makes the jury the sole judges as to whether or not the matter circulated is obscene and' indecent, testimony as to the use of similar pictures in commerce and trade is incompetent.</p> <p>SAME-ACCUSED AS WITNESS-REMARKS OF COUNSEL.</p> <p>. Where a defendant charged with distributing an indecent picture offered himself and was sworn as a witness, but gave no testimony because the questions asked by his counsel were not admitted, it is not error for the prosecution to refer in argument to his offer to testify and make the comment that he made no denial of the indecency of the picture.</p> <p>SAME-INSTRUCTIONS AS TO CREDIBILITY.</p> <p>Where a defendant is sworn as a witness in his own behalf, it is not error for the court to charge that the testimony of the defendant should be weighed as that of any other witness, even though he did not testify because of the refusal to admit the testimony which his counsel endeavored to elicit and the denial of the right of cross examination on the part of the state.</p>