State v. Bozovich

17 Citing cases

  1. State v. Donaldson

    76 Wn. 2d 513 (Wash. 1969)   Cited 14 times

    State v. Presta, 108 Wn. 256, 183 P. 112. Stated conversely, the rule is that such cross-examination may not be utilized for the primary purpose of discrediting the person on trial. State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395. A review of the pertinent testimony shows no such improper purpose in the case at bar.

  2. State v. Perez-Cervantes

    141 Wn. 2d 468 (Wash. 2000)   Cited 109 times
    Reviewing courts must be convinced that " ‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court’ " (quoting Huelett , 92 Wash.2d at 969, 603 P.2d 1258 )

    It is generally customary to introduce expert medical testimony to establish the cause of death; however, proof thereof need not be confined to that character of testimony. Engstrom, 79 Wn.2d at 476 (citing State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395 (1927); L.S. Tellier, Annotation, Necessity, in Homicide Prosecution, of Expert Medical Testimony to Show Cause of Death, 31 A.L.R.2d 693 (1953)); see also State v. Childs, 8 Wn. App. 388, 391, 506 P.2d 869 (1973) (noting "proof of the cause of death does not depend solely upon expert medical testimony"); 31A AM. JUR. 2D Expert and Opinion Evidence § 258, at 258-59 (1989).

  3. State v. Engstrom

    79 Wn. 2d 469 (Wash. 1971)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Engstrom the court approved instructions which required the jury, in order to convict the defendant, to find "that the operation of the vehicle in an intoxicated condition must be the proximate cause of the death."

    It is generally customary to introduce expert medical testimony to establish the cause of death; however, proof thereof need not be confined to that character of testimony. State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395 (1927); see Necessity, in homicide prosecution, of expert medical testimony to show cause of death, Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 693 (1953). We are satisfied that the court did not err in submitting this issue to the jury, and that there were substantial facts and circumstances upon which the jury could base its finding.

  4. State v. Cole

    270 N.C. 382 (N.C. 1967)   Cited 8 times

    Waller v. People. 209 Ill. 284, 70 N.W. 681; State v. Rounds, 104 Vt. 442, 160 A. 249. See, also, in this connection: S. v. Peterson, supra ( 225 N.C. 540, 35 S.E.2d 645); S. v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E.2d 606; S. v. Johnson, supra ( 193 N.C. 701, 138 S.E. 19); Brundage v. State, 70 Ga. App. 696, 29 S.E.2d 316; James v. State, 67 Ga. App. 300, 20 S.E.2d 87; Brown v. State, 10 Ga. App. 216, 73 S.E. 33; Commonwealth v. Sullivan 285 Ky. 477, 148 S.W.2d 343; People v. Jackzo, 206 Mich. 183, 172 N.W. 557; Franklin v. State, 180 Tenn. 41, 171 S.W.2d 281; Mayfield v. State, 101 Tenn. 673, 49 S.W. 742; Lemons v. State, 97 Tenn. 560, 37 S.W. 552; McMillan v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. 343, 165 S.W. 576; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395."

  5. State v. Case

    49 Wn. 2d 66 (Wash. 1956)   Cited 137 times

    t penalty that should be exacted of a defendant in such a case for his failure to seek, by way of a motion for a new trial, the remedy to which he is in any event entitled, would be a denial of his costs on his successful appeal. To this point we have limited our citation of supporting authority to those cases dealing with misconduct or claimed misconduct by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury. Of interest also are the following cases, in which new trials were granted for other types of misconduct (in opening statements, or in the examination of witnesses), in which we either excused the failure to object or request instructions because no instruction could have cured the prejudicial error ( State v. O'Donnell (1937), 191 Wn. 511, 71 P.2d 571; State v. Smith (1937), 189 Wn. 422, 65 P.2d 1075) or held that an instruction actually given did not cure the prejudicial error ( State v. Tweedy (1931), 165 Wn. 281, 5 P.2d 335; State v. Carr (1930), 160 Wn. 83, 294 P. 1016; State v. Bozovich (1927), 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395). We summarize the issues here determined:

  6. State v. Reeder

    46 Wn. 2d 888 (Wash. 1955)   Cited 35 times
    Holding "the harm had already been done, and it could not have been cured by instructions to disregard the statements so flagrantly made"

    "`The safeguards which the wisdom of ages has thrown around persons accused of crime cannot be disregarded, and such officers are reminded that a fearless, impartial discharge of public duty, accompanied by a spirit of fairness toward the accused, is the highest commendation they can hope for. Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.' "See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wn. 598, 120 P. 88; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wn. 48, 132 P. 731; State v. Arnold, 130 Wn. 370, 227 P. 505; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wn. 452, 271 P. 89." [2] No objections were made to the three statements above quoted.

  7. State v. Barry

    43 Wn. 2d 807 (Wash. 1953)   Cited 15 times

    [1] Appellant argues that the situation created by the deputy prosecutor and the witness was so prejudicial that no instruction of the court could cure the effect of the alleged misconduct and the court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. The cases of State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395; State v. Heaton, 149 Wn. 452, 271 P. 89; and State v. Tweedy, 165 Wn. 281, 5 P.2d 335, are said to support appellant's contention. Without discussing these decisions in detail, we have examined them and find that in the present case there is no such flagrant misconduct of the prosecutor or the witness as existed in the cited cases.

  8. State v. Cyr

    40 Wn. 2d 840 (Wash. 1952)   Cited 36 times
    In State v. Cyr, 40 Wn.2d 840, 246 P.2d 480 (1952), the defendant was arrested while in a restaurant on a charge of burglary.

    Stated conversely, the rule is that such cross-examination may not be utilized for the primary purpose of discrediting the person on trial. State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395.

  9. State v. Minton

    234 N.C. 716 (N.C. 1952)   Cited 83 times
    In S. v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844, Ervin, J., said: "An accused, who relies on an alibi, does not have the burden of proving it.

    hen it fashions rules of evidence for use in the search for truth. The cause of death may be established in a prosecution for unlawful homicide without the use of expert medical testimony where the facts in evidence are such that every person of average intelligence would know from his own experience or knowledge that the wound was mortal in character. Waller v. People, 209 Ill. 284, 70 N.E. 681; State v. Rounds, 104 Vt. 442, 160 A. 249. See, also, in this connection: S. v. Peterson, supra; S. v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E.2d 606; S. v. Johnson, supra; Brundage v. State, 70 Ga. App. 696, 29 S.E.2d 316; James v. State, 67 Ga. App. 300, 20 S.E.2d 87; Brown v. State, 10 Ga. App. 216, 73 S.E. 33; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 285 Ky. 477, 148 S.W.2d 343; People v. Jackzo, 206 Mich. 183, 172 N.W. 557; Franklin v. State, 180 Tenn. 41, 171 S.W.2d 281; Mayfield v. State, 101 Tenn. 673, 49 S.W. 742; Lemons v. State, 97 Tenn. 560, 37 S.W. 552; McMillan v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. 343, 165 S.W. 576; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395. There is no proper foundation, however, for a finding by the jury as to the cause of death without expert medical testimony where the cause of death is obscure and an average layman could have no well grounded opinion as to the cause.

  10. State v. Tweedy

    165 Wn. 281 (Wash. 1931)   Cited 18 times
    In State v. Tweedy, 165 Wn. 281, 5 P.2d 335, a judgment of conviction was reversed because of the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in asking repeated questions concerning the whereabouts of a witness, after the trial court had ruled against the admission of the evidence.

    "`The safeguards which the wisdom of ages has thrown around persons accused of crime cannot be disregarded, and such officers are reminded that a fearless, impartial discharge of public duty, accompanied by a spirit of fairness toward the accused, is the highest commendation they can hope for. Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.' "See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wn. 598, 120 P. 88; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wn. 48, 132 P. 731; State v. Arnold, 130 Wn. 370, 227 P. 505; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wn. 227, 259 P. 395; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wn. 452, 271 P. 89." In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.