Legal Opinion

State v. Renneberg

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1974No. 42834Published

1Concurrence · HaleHale, C.J.

(concurring in part) — I have signed the court’s opinion and concur in all of it except that part which purports to predict a future overruling of Lankford v. Tombari, 35 Wn.2d 412, 213 P.2d 627, 19 A.L.R.2d 462 (1950), a case which held that proof of drug addiction is relevant to credibility. The rule admitting such evidence cuts both ways, and it is available to both defense and prosecution and I think should be retained. When the prosecution is compelled by the force of circumstances to rely upon the testimony of narcotic addicts to establish guilt, the defendant in all fairness should be…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Hamilton.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. Fong LoonIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Lankford v. TombariWashington Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. McKennaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  4. Wilson v. Thurston National InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API