State v. Wilson

Citations

• 68 Wash. 464
• 123 P. 795
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1313

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses- — Cross-Examination—Relevancy. Upon cross- examination it is not error to exclude a question relating to a subject upon which the witness had not testified.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Evidence. Error in excluding evidence is cured where it was subsequently admitted.</p> <p>Appeal — Preservation of Grounds — Motion to Strike Evidence. A motion to strike out all the evidence of a witness is properly denied where part of it was relevant.</p> <p>Homicide — Evidence—Relevancy—Domestic Relations of Accused. Upon a prosecution for murder, evidence of the domestic relations of the accused and his wife is relevant, where it appears (1) that the statements of the accused made the inquiry proper, and (2) that the theory of the motive for the crime was based upon the fact that defendant was a sexual pervert.</p> <p>Witnesses — Use of Interpreters. A witness may be allowed to testify through an interpreter as to a statement made by the accused, where it appears- that he understood the language used by the accused but was incapable of expressing himself clearly in the English language.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence-—Confessions—Inducement—Question fob Jury. Upon a conflict in the evidence as to whether a confession was made under the influence of fear produced by threats, the question is for the jury, and it is not error to admit evidence of the confession.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Opinions — Experts — Hypothetical Questions. In a prosecution for murder by an alleged sexual pervert, it is not error to allow a physician, answering a hypothetical question as an expert, to give iiis opinion as to whether such a person, deluded hy hallucinations to kill, would commit murder to gratify his sexual passions; especially where the preceding questions clearly showed that he did not give his opinion as to what the defendant did, but only as to what a man so afflicted would have a tendency to do.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Reward—Relevancy. Evidence that