Summary
In State v. Adams, 144 Wn. 699, 257 P. 387, the situation was identical with that in State v. Sickles, except that no offer of proof was made, nor was any excuse shown for the failure to serve a list of witnesses; and we held that the granting of a new trial was proper, because at the trial the court should have inquired into the reason for the failure to serve a list of witnesses, and then have exercised its discretion as to whether the witnesses should be allowed to testify notwithstanding such failure.
Summary of this case from State v. MartinOpinion
No. 20558. Department Two.
June 29, 1927.
Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Findley, J., entered January 14, 1927, granting a new trial to the defendant, after a trial and conviction of grand larceny. Affirmed.
Ewing D. Colvin and Harry A. Rhodes, for appellant.
Henry Clay Agnew, W.E. Barnhart, and L.A. Michelson, for respondent.
The above case is similar in all respects to the case of State v. Sickles, ante, p. 236, 257 P. 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.