State v. Harville

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Harville

527 P.2d 479, 84 Wash. 2d 496, 1974 Wash. LEXIS 751

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 24, 1974

DocketNo. 43175

StatusPublished

This text of 527 P.2d 479 (State v. Harville) 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. Harville, 527 P.2d 479, 84 Wash. 2d 496, 1974 Wash. LEXIS 751 (Wash. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Division Three of the Court of Appeals, per Melnturff, J., affirmed a superior court determination to the effect that the defendant, when subpoenaed to testify before a special inquiry judge prior to being charged with the offense under investigation, had not been adequately advised concerning his privilege against self-incrimination as required by RCW 10.27.120, and that suppression of his testimony before the special inquiry judge at his trial on the charge was the appropriate method to remedy the deficiency.

We granted defendant’s petition for review. State v. Harville, 83 Wn.2d 1011 (1974).

Upon our review of the record and the briefs of counsel, and after consideration of oral argument, we are convinced the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. Accordingly, we accept the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and affirm the opinion as written. State v. Harville, 10 Wn. App. 498, 518 P.2d 730 (1974).

It is so ordered.

Petition for rehearing denied December 18, 1974.

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

Per Curiam.

— Division Three of the Court of Appeals, per Melnturff, J., affirmed a superior court determination to the effect that the defendant, when subpoenaed to testify before a special inquiry judge prior to being charged with the offense under investigation, had not been adequately advised concerning his privilege against self-incrimination as required by RCW 10.27.120, and that suppression of his testimony before the special inquiry judge at his trial on the charge was the appropriate method to remedy the deficiency.

We granted defendant’s petition for review. State v. Harville, 83 Wn.2d 1011 (1974).

Upon our review of the record and the briefs of counsel, and after consideration of oral argument, we are convinced the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. Accordingly, we accept the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and affirm the opinion as written. State v. Harville, 10 Wn. App. 498, 518 P.2d 730 (1974).

It is so ordered.

Petition for rehearing denied December 18, 1974.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 P.2d 479, 84 Wash. 2d 496, 1974 Wash. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harville-wash-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack