title:
Dominico Coella, Appellant, vs The State of Washington, Appellee, Brief of Appellant
title:
134
creator:
Dominico Coella
contributor:
John Fairield
contributor:
Daniel Kelleher
contributor:
G. Meade Emory
date:
1891-05
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Criminal
type:
Petition for Review
subject:
Criminal
subject:
Constitutional
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Jefferson County.MURDER – JURY – IMPEACHING WITNESS – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS – ARGUMENT – INSTRUCTIONS – MISCONDUCT OF JUDGEUnder Code 1881, §§212 and 1078, the former employer of a decedent is disqualified as a juror in a trial for his murder.Where a juror called in a murder trial testifies that he has formed and expressed an opinion which would require evidence to remove, but that he would try the case on the evidence and the law, he is disqualified upon the ground of actual bias, as it cannot be inferred from such testimony that he would disregard the opinion he had formed.A witness may be asked on cross-examination for the purpose of impeaching her credibility, where she is a prostitute, and it error for the court to sustain an objection thereto, unless the witness claims the privilege of reusing to answer on the ground of criminating herself.A witness testified in a murder trial that defendant said that “unless some one paid him he would take his life,” and added, “I often thought of what he said at the saloon, and one day while, I said to myself, ‘My God! He said he would kill that man, and he did it:’” Held, Incompetent, as expressing the witness’ opinion of defendant’s guilt. Where a witness has denied having a conversation with certain persons, in which he refused to tell where the defendant was concealed for fear defendant would kill him if he told, it is competent, as being hearsay evidence, to allow such persons to testify that the witness said “he could not tell us where defendant was, for the Italians who were the friends of the defendant would kill him.”Where a defendant, after having been shot down by officers sent to arrest him, but apparently ignorant of the fact that the were officers, and without any threats being made against him, makes confession that he killed decedent, the confession is a voluntary one and admissible in evidence.Evidence is admissible in a murder trial to show that a third party had told defendant that the decedent threated to kill defendant, if he kept on talking about his owing him money, as a circumstance tending to show the danger defendant believed himself to be in at the time of the murder.It is in the discretion of the trial court to exclude the jury during the argument of counsel upon instructions asked as the law of the case, and the sending the jury from the room at such time, while the trial is in progress, does not violate the constitutional provision (art. 1, §22) that in criminal prosecutions defendants shall have a public trial by an impartial jury.In charging the jury in a trial for murder the court should, if so requested, define the terms “malice” and “premeditation” employed by him in stating the statutory requisites constituting murder and manslaughter. The reading of a newspaper by the judge while the defendant in a murder trial is on the witness stand, and familiar and pleasant conversation by the judge with a witness whom the defendant’s attorney was trying to impeach, is such misconduct on the part of the judge as to entitle the defendant to a new trial.
relation:
State v. Coella, 3 Wash. 99 (189)
relation:
State v. Coella, 8 Wash. 512 (1894)
relation:
28 P. 28
relation:
36 P. 474
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf