State v. Martin

Holcom:b, J.

(concurring) — I concur in the result reached by the majority solely upon the ground that the trial judge was advised by the affidavits, applications and orders for subpoenas to witnesses, that the witnesses required by appellant, who were excluded from testifying by the trial judge, were probably material witnesses, both of whom had been allowed and ordered by the court, and the state did not claim surprise.

Under the spirit of our decisions in the cases of State v. Sickles, 144 Wash. 236, 257 Pac. 385, and State v. Adams, Id. 699, 257 Pac. 387, the reversal and granting a new…