State v. Christensen

242 P.2d 755, 40 Wash. 2d 329, 1952 Wash. LEXIS 326
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 10, 1952
Docket32087
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 242 P.2d 755 (State v. Christensen) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Christensen, 242 P.2d 755, 40 Wash. 2d 329, 1952 Wash. LEXIS 326 (Wash. 1952).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This matter involves interpretation of Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 26 (a), 34A Wn. (2d) 84, providing for the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery.

An information was filed in the superior court of Spokane county charging the defendant with the crime of robbery. After the prosecuting attorney served on counsel *330 for defendant a list of the state’s witnesses, defendant filed and served on the prosecuting attorney a notice of intention to take depositions, before trial, of the state’s witnesses for the purpose of discovery under the provisions of Rule 26(a). The prosecuting attorney then obtained an order directing defendant to show cause why he should not be restrained from issuing or attempting to issue subpoenas directed to the state’s witnesses. This matter came before Honorable Charles W. Greenough, who entered an order restraining the issuance of such subpoenas.

Upon application of defendant, an alternative writ of mandate was issued out of this court directing said Honorable Charles W. Greenough to make and enter an appropriate order vacating and setting aside his order hereinabove referred to, or in the alternative, to show cause on the 28th day of March, 1952, why he should not do so. The matter was heard March 28, 1952.

Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 26 (a), 34A Wn. (2d) 84, providing for taking the testimony of any person by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence in the action, or for both purposes, is applicable only in civil procedure and has no application in criminal procedure.

The application for a writ of mandate is denied, and the alternative writ heretofore issued out of this court is quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Pawlyk
800 P.2d 338 (Washington Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Gonzalez
757 P.2d 925 (Washington Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Smith
461 P.2d 873 (Washington Supreme Court, 1969)
Kardy v. SHOOK, J.
207 A.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1965)
Parmenter v. State
1963 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)
Clark v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 2d 739 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
Reed v. Allen
153 A.2d 74 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 P.2d 755, 40 Wash. 2d 329, 1952 Wash. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-christensen-wash-1952.