State v. Adams
This text of 257 P. 387 (State v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The above case is similar in all respects to the case of State v. Sickles, ante, p. 236, 257 Pac. 385, except that in this case defendant did not make any offers of proof of any witnesses produced other than that of defendant, who himself testified, or make any showing as to the reason why a list of witnesses was not furnished the prosecution as provided by statute.
The trial court made the same order in this case as was made in the Sickles case, supra.
What he should have done would have been to call for reasons, if any, why the list of witnesses had not been furnished by the defendant earlier, and exercised his discretion as to whether the witnesses would be allowed to testify on behalf of the defendant, although no list of witnesses had been furnished by defendant or his counsel before trial.
The result reached in ordering a new trial was correct, whatever the reason, and it is therefore affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
257 P. 387, 144 Wash. 699, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adams-wash-1927.