From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Howard

The Supreme Court of Washington
Jan 4, 1926
242 P. 21 (Wash. 1926)


No. 19575. Department Two.

January 4, 1926.

WITNESSES (84) — CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES. Error cannot be assigned upon the cross-examination of accused as to her prior conviction of a violation of the liquor laws, where she volunteered the statement as to having pleaded guilty to a prior violation.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Webster, J., entered March 5, 1925, upon a trial and conviction of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Affirmed.

W.C. Donovan and T.T. Grant, for appellant.

Chas. H. Leavy and Frank Funkhouser, for respondent.

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.

[1] 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 to cross-examine her in regard to it. State v. Melvern, 32 Wn. 7, 72 P. 489.

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


Summaries of

State v. Howard

The Supreme Court of Washington
Jan 4, 1926
242 P. 21 (Wash. 1926)
Case details for

State v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. VERA HOWARD, Appellant

Court:The Supreme Court of Washington

Date published: Jan 4, 1926


242 P. 21 (Wash. 1926)
242 P. 21
137 Wash. 172

Citing Cases

State v. Wilson

[8] Furthermore, appellant on his direct examination having gone into the matters pertaining to his former…

State v. Hudlow

The door may be opened by inadmissible as well as admissible evidence. See, e.g., State v. Odell, 38 Wn.2d 4,…