City of Seattle v. Evans, s. 39928--40039
| Decision Date | 23 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 39928--40039,s. 39928--40039 |
| Citation | 450 P.2d 176,75 Wn.2d 225 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. Marie EVANS, Appellant. |
Moschetto & Alfieri, Michael Alfieri, Seattle, for appellant.
A. L. Newbould, Corp. Counsel, H. Joseph Coleman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Seattle, for respondent.
The following appeals were taken from two separate convictions of violating the city of Seattle's prostitution ordinance. On two separate occasions the defendant Marie Evans was found guilty of prostitution by the Seattle Municipal Court. Both convictions were appealed to the King County Superior Court but were affirmed after trial de novo, by a judge sitting without a jury. The defendant now appeals to the Supreme Court of Washington.
In the first case, Officer Martin of the Seattle Police Department followed the defendant on July 12, 1967, for approximately 4 blocks in Seattle's 'China Town' until he asked her if he had to follow her all over town to talk to her. The defendant accused the officer of being a 'cop' and stated that she did not wish to talk to him, but after he produced some identification showing that he was an insurance company representative she asked him if he was looking for a date. He replied affirmatively. She then asked Officer Martin how much he had to spend and he replied $15 or $20. The defendant then directed the officer to obtain a room in a hotel which was across the street from where they were standing. Officer Martin procured a room and was joined by the defendant. After entering the room, certain conversation followed in which the defendant told the officer that the price was $20. He thereupon arrested the defendant.
On July 20, 1967, the defendant was found guilty as charged in the Seattle Municipal Court, and sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve 90 days in the city jail, 60 days of which were suspended. She appealed to the Superior Court and after trial de novo on September 21, 1967, the trial court, sitting without a jury, found her guilty. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered on September 29, 1967, and the defendant was sentenced to serve 60 days in city jail. The defendant thereafter filed notice of appeal to this court.
The second case involving the same defendant took place on August 24, 1967. Officer Nelson of the Seattle vice squad was working in the same area (China Town) when the defendant approached the officer and asked him where he was going. Upon learning that he was going to have a beer, she asked if she could accompany him and he acquiesced. The defendant then asked the officer if he was looking for a date to which he replied affirmatively. A $20 price was agreed upon and the officer was directed to a hotel where the defendant later joined him. They entered the room and she started to undo her garters. Officer Nelson asked her if she wanted the money at this point, and on receiving an affirmative response, he produced a badge and placed the defendant under arrest.
On September 7, 1967, in Seattle Municipal Court, the defendant was found guilty of agreeing to commit an act of prostitution and was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve 90 days in the city jail, 30 days of which were suspended. She appealed to Superior Court, and, after trial de novo before a court sitting without a jury, was found guilty. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered on December 8, 1967, and the sentence of the Municipal Court was reimposed. Thereafter, the defendant gave notice of appeal to this court.
The defendant contends that the circumstances of her arrest, in both instances, constituted an entrapment, and that therefore her convictions should be reversed.
With respect to the July incident, the defendant argues that the officer pursued her; and that he persisted in his efforts to induce her to give him a date which she repeatedly refused and rejected. The defendant argues that the intent to commit prostitution did not originate in her mind, but rather, she was lured and induced to commit a crime she clearly had no intention of doing.
The defendant employs substantially the same argument in reference to the August arrest. She argues that despite the fact that she was first to speak on this occation, the officer induced her to commit the crime when he invited her to accompany him for a beer.
The general rule of law on entrapment was stated by this court in State v. Moore, 69...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...available where the accused is lured or induced by an officer to commit a crime he had no intention of committing. Seattle v. Evans, 75 Wash.2d 225, 228, 450 P.2d 176 (1969); Seattle v. Muldrew, 71 Wash.2d 903, 431 P.2d 589 (1967). If officers request or suggest payment of a bribe from an a......
-
State v. Swain
...Washington. The Washington cases have applied this test. State v. Waggoner, 80 Wash.2d 7, 10, 490 P.2d 1308 (1971); Seattle v. Evans, 75 Wash.2d 225, 229, 450 P.2d 176 (1969); State v. Gray, 69 Wash.2d 432, 434, 418 P.2d 725 (1966). State v. Waggoner, Supra, 80 Wash.2d at 10--11, 490 P.2d a......
-
State v. Walker
...State v. Waggoner, 80 Wash.2d 7, 490 P.2d 1308 (1971); State v. Ensminger, 77 Wash.2d 535, 463 P.2d 612 (1970); Seattle v. Evans, 75 Wash.2d 225, 450 P.2d 176 (1969); Seattle v. Muldrew, 71 Wash.2d 903, 431 P.2d 589 (1967); State v. Curry, 70 Wash.2d 383, 422 P.2d 823 (1967); State v. Gray,......
-
Anderson v. Section 11, Inc.
...have not assigned error to this finding of fact and therefore it becomes the established fact of the case. Seattle v. Evans, 75 Wash.2d 225, 228, 450 P.2d 176 (1969). The threshold determination in each of the referenced statutes is a fraudulent or deceptive practice. The plaintiffs having ......