Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

137 Wash. 172

242 P 21

State v. Howard

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1926

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1926-01-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the testimony might not have been originally material”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 99 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Hudlow

Relies on State v. Melvern

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1926-01-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1983

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

401926193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mackintosh, J.

¶1 The appellant was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in her possession with intent to sell, and on this appeal raises one objection to her conviction, and that is that error was committed in allowing her to be interrogated as to facts pertaining to a former arrest and conviction.

¶2 The record shows that, while appellant was on the stand, she volunteered a statement about a prior occasion upon which she had pleaded guilty to a violation of the liquor law, and that, upon cross-examination, this prior conviction was inquired into by the prosecuting attorney. In this we find no error, for, while the testimony might not have been originally material, it having been placed in the case by the appellant herself, the door was then opened for the state *173 to cross-examine her in regard to it. State v. Melvern, 32 Wash. 7, 72 Pac. 489.

¶3 There being, therefore, no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.

¶4 Tolman, C. J., Main, Mitchell, • and Parker, JJ., concur.

/137/wash/172 · .json · Public domain