Title: State v. Schimschal

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

73 Wn.2d 141 (1968) 437 P.2d 169 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. VIKTOR SCHIMSCHAL, Respondent.[*] No. 39926. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. February 1, 1968. *142 The Attorney General, Robert M. McDonald, Assistant, Nathan G. Richardson, and Paul E. Froude, for appellant. HILL, J. This is a filiation proceeding. There was a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, and from a judgment dismissing the action this appeal is taken. The defendant (the respondent here) has filed no brief and made no appearance in this court. The complaining witness, Elaine Conklin Vernon, was married to Lloyd Ed Conklin July 19, 1957. Three children were born of this marriage. Mr. and Mrs. Conklin separated in 1964; he took one child with him and went to California. Mrs. Conklin kept the other two children and moved to Sequim in the summer of 1964. She secured a divorce from Mr. Conklin May 4, 1965. The child whose paternity is here in question was born November 22, 1965. This proceeding was commenced May 9, 1966, while the complaining witness was unmarried. There was testimony that a Mr. H. was having sexual relations with the mother in January and February in 1965, as was the defendant, and that there also had been a Mr. K. in January, 1965. It is clear that the husband, Mr. Conklin, and Messrs. H. and K. to use the language of the appellant's brief must be "painted out of the picture." To "paint out" the husband and Messrs. H. and K., the state made the following offer of proof: The trial court sustained an objection to the proffered testimony. *143 The trial court took the position that the mother should not be permitted to bastardize her child, conceived during coverture. Its statement was: [1] However admirable the position taken, it is contrary to our holding in In re a Minor, 29 Wn.2d 759, 762, 189 P.2d 458 (1948), where we said: We later in the same opinion quote State v. Soyka, 181 Minn. 533, 233 N.W. 300, on the "Lord Mansfield rule": See also Moore v. Smith, 178 Miss. 383, 172 So. 317 (1937); Lynch v. Rosenberger, 121 Kan. 601, 249 Pac. 682, 60 A.L.R. 376 (1926); In re Wray's Estate, 93 Mont. 525, 19 P.2d 1051 (1933); Loudon v. Loudon, 114 N.J. Eq. 242, 168 Atl. 840, 89 A.L.R. 904 (1933). [2] The evidence excluded by the trial court should have been admitted. This is a civil action; State v. Kratzer, 70 Wn.2d 566, 424 P.2d 316 (1967). It is for the benefit of the child; and, if the defendant is the father, he should bear some responsibility for her maintenance, care, education and support; RCW 26.24.030. The exclusion, however, was not particularly prejudicial to the state's case insofar as its attempt to "paint out" Mr. Conklin was concerned, since Elaine Conklin Vernon did testify that she had not seen her former husband since he left for California in 1964; so, if the jury believed her, Conklin was eliminated as a possible father of her child. Her testimony was, however, vital if Messrs. H. and K., or another possibility suggested by the defense, were each to be eliminated as a putative father of the child. The jury might or might not have believed her testimony but it should have had the opportunity of hearing it and evaluating it. [3] The state also urges that its following proposed instruction should have been given: Testimony to that effect might well be admissible, and it could be given as an instruction if the trial court desired to do so. We find no case holding that it is prejudicial error to fail to give such an instruction. For the exclusion of the testimony of Elaine Conklin Vernon, as set forth in the state's offer of proof, the judgment of dismissal is set aside and a new trial is granted. FINLEY, C.J., HUNTER and HAMILTON, JJ., and EVANS, J. Pro Tem., concur. [*] Reported in 437 P.2d 169.