City of Seattle v. Gordon
Citation | 342 P.2d 604,54 Wn.2d 516 |
Decision Date | 23 July 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 34656,34656 |
Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. William G. GORDON, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Eddleman & Wheeler, Arnold B. Robbins, Seattle, for appellant.
A. C. Van Soelen, Arthur T. Lane, Seattle, for respondent.
Shortly after 12:15 a. m., March 23, 1957, William G. Gordon, accompanied by his wife, was driving his automobile on Westlake avenue in Seattle. When he arrived at the intersection of Virginia street with Westlake avenue, he made a right turn into Virginia street, and immediately realized that he was driving in the wrong direction on a one-way street. He drove off Virginia street into an alley and, after proceeding down the alley for a short distance, was stopped by a person who appeared before the headlights of his automobile and then came to the driver's window. Gordon was ordered to open his car, but accelerated it instead and drove away. The person who stopped Gordon was an officer of the Seattle police department.
Gordon was charged in the Seattle municipal court (1) with violation of municipal ordinance No. 80998, § 15, for failing to stop his motor vehicle when requested to do so by an arresting officer, and (2) with violation of ordinance No. 80998, § 45, for reckless driving.
He was found guilty as charged by the municipal court, and appealed to the superior court. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. From the judgment and sentence entered upon the verdict, Gordon has appealed.
Appellant's contention at the trial of his case, before both the municipal court and the superior court, was that, after he turned into the alley, a 'dark shadow' crossed about ten or twelve feet in front of his automobile and that he had to stop to avoid hitting it. The 'shadow' then came around to the driver's window and said 'open up.' Appellant lowered the window two or three inches. He testified:
* * *'
Appellant assigns error to the court's refusal to give his requested instructions,(1) that scienter is an element of the offense of failing to stop when ordered to do so by an officer, and (2) that his alleged reckless driving was excusable, if a reasonably prudent man, under the same or similar circumstances, would have believed that he was in peril.
Section 15 of ordinance No. 80998 reads in part as follows:
Cf. RCW 46.59.190.
At common law, scienter was an element of every crime. When the common law was codified into the criminal statutes, there was a modification of the common-law rule relative to the element of intent, namely, in those criminal offenses regarded as acts mala prohibita scienter is not an element, while in those offenses designated as acts mala in se intent is an element.
The distinction between those offenses which require scienter (acts mala in se) and those mala prohibita is that, in the latter group of cases, the legislature may properly say that (1) to require scienter to be proved would defeat the purpose of the act, and (2) the doing of the act itself imperils the public safety or welfare. 1 Wharton's Criminal Law (12th ed). 160, § 113.
In State v. Lindberg, 1923, 125 Wash. 51, 59, 215 P. 41, 45, this court said:
Whether the legislature intended scienter to be an element of a crime, when it is not specifically defined as an element, is a determination to be made by the courts. 14 Am.Jur. 784, § 24.
Resisting arrest was a crime at common law. Scienter was an element. The city ordinance is a codification of that crime. It does not specifically eliminate scienter as an element. If such is to be presumed, it must be because we can infer that the legislative body...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Fernandez, 72-2088
......( E. g., City of Seattle v. Gordon (Wash.1959), 54 Wash.2d 516, 342 P.2d 604, 606; cf. Morissette v. United ......
-
State v. Vaile
...... intended to resist. Intent is a necessary element of the. crime. City of Seattle v. Gordon , 54 Wn.2d 516, 520,. 342 P.2d 604 (1959). . . ......
-
Estrella v. King Cnty., 72622-6-I
...608-09, 610. 21. Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 606-07 (citing State v. Turner, 78 Wn.2d 276, 280, 474 P.2d 91 (1970)). 22. City of Seattle v. Gordon, 54 Wn.2d 516, 519, 342 P.2d 604 (1959) (citing 1 FRANCIS WHARTON & J.C. RUPPENTHAL, WHARTON'S CRIMINAL LAW § 113, at 160 (12th ed. 1932)). 23. Morrisset......
-
Estrella v. King County
...608-09, 610. [21] Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 606-07 (citing State v. Turner, 78 Wn.2d 276, 280, 474P.2d91 (1970)). [22] City of Seattle v. Gordon, 54 Wn.2d 516, 519, 342 P.2d 604 (1959) (citing 1 Francis Wharton & J.C. Ruppenthal, Wharton's Criminal Law § 113, at 160 (12th ed. 1932)). [23] Morrisse......