Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

167 Wash. 420

9 P.2d 355

State v. Vaughn

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1932

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1932-03-28

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-03-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1963

4 state decisions

201932194019501960decided

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 →

Tolman, C. J.

¶1 (dissenting) — I am unable to agree with the majority. Giving full force and effect to our constitutional provision and to all of the authorities cited, still I am utterly unable to see in the trial court’s remarks anything remotely resembling a comment on the evidence.

¶2*427 Tlie language used, as quoted by the majority, goes solely to the question of admissibility of evidence to be offered. Counsel wanted tbe witness to ask himself questions so that, if it appeared the purpose was to offer objectionable testimony, an objection might be interposed before the answer was given. The court’s remarks plainly meant nothing more than that the witness, being a practicing attorney, knew what was admissible and what was not, and would not attempt to introduce evidence not competent under the issues. The jury, having heard the whole of the colloquy, must have so understood the court’s remarks, and if we are to credit the jurors with ordinary intelligence, none could have arrived at any other conclusion.

¶3 I therefore dissent.

/167/wash/420 · .json · Public domain