State v. Gandee

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Gandee

439 P.2d 400, 73 Wash. 2d 978, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 720

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1968

Docket39737

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 439 P.2d 400 (State v. Gandee) 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. Gandee, 439 P.2d 400, 73 Wash. 2d 978, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 720 (Wash. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of riding in a stolen vehicle. During the trial, over his objection, the state was permitted to question him on cross-examination concerning his prior criminal record, and it was brought out that he had been previously convicted three times for offenses similar to that for which he was on trial. His sole contention on appeal is that the introduction of this evidence was prejudicial and denied him the right to a fair trial.

The same contention was before this court in the recent case of State v. Smithers, 67 Wn.2d 666, 409 P.2d 463 (1965). We held that the evidence was admissible under RCW 10.52.030. (The constitutionality of this statute was determined in the case of State v. Blaine, 64 Wash. 122, 116 Pac. 660 (1911).) The appellant’s counsel argues strenuously for the modification or abandonment of the rule, but we are not convinced that we should retreat from the holdings of these cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of riding in a stolen vehicle. During the trial, over his objection, the state was permitted to question him on cross-examination concerning his prior criminal record, and it was brought out that he had been previously convicted three times for offenses similar to that for which he was on trial. His sole contention on appeal is that the introduction of this evidence was prejudicial and denied him the right to a fair trial.

The same contention was before this court in the recent case of State v. Smithers, 67 Wn.2d 666, 409 P.2d 463 (1965). We held that the evidence was admissible under RCW 10.52.030. (The constitutionality of this statute was determined in the case of State v. Blaine, 64 Wash. 122, 116 Pac. 660 (1911).) The appellant’s counsel argues strenuously for the modification or abandonment of the rule, but we are not convinced that we should retreat from the holdings of these cases.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 P.2d 400, 73 Wash. 2d 978, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gandee-wash-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack