State v. CarpenterState v. Carpenter
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Parker
The appellant was charged with the crime of robbery, and upоn a trial before the court and a jury, was found guilty. He moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and exceptions noted, when judgment аnd sentence was pronounced against him accordingly. He thеreupon appealed to this court, assigning as error the ruling of the trial court in allowing the name of a witness to be indorsed on thе information, and in denying appellant’s motion for a continuanсe.
*671When the case was called for trial, the prosecuting аttorney asked that the name of a witness be indorsed on the informаtion, which was by the court permitted over appellant’s objection, and the witness was thereafter allowed to testify for the stаte, also over appellant’s objection. Immediately uрon the court’s permitting the indorsement of the name of the witness upon the information, the attorney for appellant orally mоved the court as’ follows: “We now move the court for a cоntinuance until we can get evidence to meet that of Columbus Crаker” (the witness), which motion the court denied. Exceptions were nоted to these rulings, and the questions were- again brought to the attention of the court upon the motion for new trial. No showing of facts of any nature was made to the court on behalf of appеllant for a continuance upon the making of the motion, nor wеre any facts shown upon the motion for new trial showing any prejudiсe to appellant’s rights by the indorsement of the name of the witnеss on the information and permitting him to testify for the state, the attorney for appellant relying solely upon the fact of the indorsеment being made at the time the case was called for trial, аnd the further fact, appearing in the record, that the prosecuting attorney must have known of the witness on February 9, some six days befоre the trial, since a subpoena was then issued for the witness.
It is clеar that the first assigned error, that is, the indorsement of the witness’ name on the information and allowing him to thereafter testify for the state, wаs not reversible error, in the absence of any other showing than аppears in this record. State v. Le Pitre, 54 Wash. 166, 103 Pac. 27.
Counsel’s contention upon the othеr assigned error is that appellant was entitled to a continuance as a matter of right upon the mere fact that the witness’ nаme was indorsed on the information when the case was callеd for trial. In support of this contention he cites: State v. John Port Townsend, 7 Wash. 462, 35 Pac. 367; State v. Bokien, 14 Wash. *672403, 44 Pac. 889; State v. Holedger, 15 Wash. 443, 46 Pac. 652; State v. Lewis, 31 Wash. 515, 72 Pac. 121.
It is true there arе expressions of the court in these cases indicating that the indorsement of the name of a witness on the information immediately рreceding or during the trial with a view of using such witness for the state may entitle the accused to a continuance; but we do not think the rule is thereby established that such indorsement alone entitles the accused to a continuance as a matter of right, to the extent thаt the trial court would be without discretion in the granting of such continuanсe. There being no showing of facts, either at the time of the indorsement of the name of the witness on the information or upon the mоtion for new trial, indicating that the rights of appellant were prejudiced by the use of this witness by the state, we are unable to say that he was thereby prevented having a fair trial, or that the discretion of the trial court was .abused. State v. Quinn, ante p. 295, 105 Pac. 818.
The judgment is affirmed.
Rudkin, C. J., Dunbar, Crow, and Mount, JJ., concur.