Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Insane Persons—Confinement In Penitentiary—Persons Insane At Time Of Commitment—Statutory Provisions, Ray M. Dunlap
Insane Persons—Confinement In Penitentiary—Persons Insane At Time Of Commitment—Statutory Provisions, Ray M. Dunlap
Washington Law Review
D was acquitted of murder by reason of his insanity. The jury returned the statutory special verdict finding that his "insanity or mental irresponsibility" did not exist at the time of the trial but that there was such likelihood of a relapse or recurrence of the condition that D was not a safe person to be at large. D was committed to the state penitentiary as a criminally insane person. Soon after commitment he sought to be discharged from confinement under the procedure set out in RCW 10.76.070 [RRS § 6970; PPC § 133-11]. The prosecuting attorney petitioned for a …
Evidence—Witnesses—Proof Of Prior Inconsistent Statements, James M. Taylor
Evidence—Witnesses—Proof Of Prior Inconsistent Statements, James M. Taylor
Washington Law Review
D was convicted of second degree assault. The prosecuting attorney, ostensibly for the purpose of laying a foundation for impeachment, asked D questions concerning D's prior inconsistent statements, using a purported manuscript of a wire recording. D neither confirmed nor denied making the statements, answering, "I don't know" or "I don't deny it or confirm it." The prosecutor failed to follow this up on rebuttal by proving or attempting to prove that the prior statements were actually made. Appellant contended this was error. Held: Conviction reversed. Such conduct was extremely prejudicial and constituted reversible error. State v. Yoakum, 137 Wash. …