¶1(dissenting). — I think that the evidence referred to in the foregoing opinion was admissible for the purpose to which it was limited by the trial court. *288The defendant had, in connection with the charge for which he was prosecuted in this action, referred to a certain other transaction, and to make this reference intelligible it was necessary that the nature of the transaction referred to should be known, and only to that extent and for'that purpose did the court allow testimony to be introduced as to such transaction.. ■' In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed/;
14 Wash. 285
State v. Thompson
Decided March 18, 1896
Washington Supreme Court · decided 1896-03-18
<p>Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County. — Hon. Emmett N. Parker, Judge.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1896-03-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 1977
3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
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 →