City of Seattle v. Morrow, 32621
| Decision Date | 08 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 32621,32621 |
| Citation | 45 Wn.2d 27,273 P.2d 238 |
| Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE, v. MORROW. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Max R. Nicolai, Seattle, for appellant.
A. C. Van Soelen, C. V. Hoard, Seattle, for respondent.
SCHWELLENBACH, Justice. Veida S. Morrow was charged in justice court in Seattle as follows:
'M. E. Ready being first duly sworn says: That on or about April 29th, 1952, at the City of Seattle, in King County, Washington, the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully:
operate a motor vehicle along and upon a public highway, in the said City, to wit: upon East Madison Street in such a manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger, other persons or property; in violation of Section 46, Ordinance No. 73375, which Ordinance is more fully referred to in Count 2 herein, and by this reference hereby made a part of this charge; (Court 2) Then and there being, said defendant did operate a motor vehicle along and upon a public highway in the said City to wit: upon East Madison Street without having in his immediate possession a valid and subsisting motor vehicle operator's license;
in violation of Sections 46 and 172 of Ordinance No. 73375 of the City of Seattle.'
She was convicted on both counts and appealed to the superior court where the case was tried de novo. She appeals her conviction in the latter court.
Police Patrolman Melvin E. Ready testified that about eleven p. m., April 29, 1952, he and Patrolman Thomas N. Stone were traveling easterly on East Madison in Seattle in pursuit of a car which, they had been notified, contained two exconvicts, both armed; that they were on the inside lane; that at times they were compelled to travel up to forty miles per hour in order to keep up with the car ahead; that in the vicinity of Seventeenth a car pulled up behind them and the driver (defendant) honked her horm and then pulled up and passed them on the right side (it was permissible under the ordinance to pass on the right side under the circumstances); that she pulled up in front and slackened her speed; that they pulled into the opposite lane and passed her; that she passed them again at the 1800 Block and again got in front of them; that they again passed her and got in front; that they then observed that the car they were pursuing made a left turn at Twentieth; that they signaled for a left turn and the defendant pulled up very closely behind them, honking her horn all the time; that they were afraid to turn for fear of having an accident with the defendant; that they crossed the intersection and attempted to turn around at the driveway to a case, but colud not do so because defendant followed them closely and continued to blow her horn; that they felt that defendant was having trouble with her car, so they stopped their car and the witness got out and went back to talk to her. At this point the car containing the two ex-convicts disappeared entirely from the picture.
Officer Ready further testified that he asked the defendant if there was something wrong and that she said, that he asked her for her driver's license, which she produced; that when he looked at it he informed her that her license had expired; that some argument ensued and, fearing trouble with the defendant, they radioed Sergeant Holland; that he came and interviewed her but got no cooperation and then ordered Ready to write the citation; that when he handed her the book to sign she refused and marked up the citation; that he told her that if she didn't sign he would have to take her down to the station and book her; that she said she always wanted to spend a night in jail, so he took her to the station. The following appears on the face of the citation: 'Failure to sign must result in immediate arrest.' Ready's testimony was corroborated by that of Officer Stone and Sergeant Holland.
The defendant was booked at the police station at 11:30 p. m., April 29, 1952. Certain personal property was taken from her but she refused to sign an itemized list thereof. She was released on bail at 2:45 a. m., April 30, 1952, and her property was returned to her.
Miss Morrow is the wife of James T. Metcalf, a consulting engineer. She is an attorney who has practiced law in Seattle since 1923. At one time she served for six years as an assistant corporation counsel. She testified that on the evening in question she and her husband had had dinner downtown with some out-of-town guests and that he preceded her home in another car; that she was traveling up East Madison on the inside lane; that, at Sixteenth a police car started up from the curb and cut ahead of her; that she passed it at Seventeenth; that at the 1900 Block it followed her closely with its spotlight shining brightly on her rear view mirror; that it turned to the right and drove up ahead of her in the lane to her right; that at Twentieth the driver slowed up, put out his hand and crowded into the center lane ahead of her. She testified, 'Without any other warning the automobile turned directly in front of me and made a U-turn directly in front of me, and I then laid on the horn and slammed on my brakes, and I came to a stop right at the rear end of their car.' She testified that she only passed the police car once and that at all times they were both traveling between twenty-three and twenty-six miles per hour. She testified that she had quite an argument with the officers, accusing them of reckless driving and telling them that driving a police car did not give them any license to drive carelessly. She explained that the reason she marked up the citation was in order to prevent them from writing any other violations after she signed it. She said that she did not sign the citation because the pen would not write. She testified that the argument was about the driver's license only and that they were going to give her a ticket for that alone; that nothing was said about reckless driving; that the only charge on the citation was violation of No. 172; that she asked what that meant and Ready said, 'Driving without a driver's license;' that, at police headquarters she heard Captain Johnson say, 'Book her for negligent driving,' and that she then saw Ready add No. 46 onto the citation. This section covers negligent driving. This testimony was denied by the officers, who testified that both numbers were on the citation before it was handed to her for her signature. Although an examination of the citation lends credence to her testimony, the jury found otherwise.
Appellant's first contention is that the trial court penalized her for having the temerity to take an appeal, by imposing a fine of $250 for what is generally considered a $25 offense. A fine of $25 may be appropriate in traffic court. However, appellant chose to appeal her conviction to the superior court, which she had a right to do. One of the hazards of such an appeal, where the trial is de novo, is that, upon conviction, the fine will be increased. We find no merit in this contention.
The principal argument of appellant for a reversal of the conviction is that Count 1 of the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...See also State v. Bonds, 98 Wash.2d 1, 16, 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); In re Richard, 75 Wash.2d 208, 449 P.2d 809 (1969); Seattle v. Morrow, 45 Wash.2d 27, 273 P.2d 238 (1954); Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 235 P. 6 (1925). This court also stated that "the law of this state has long been that......
-
State v. Leach
...106 P. 756 (1910) (justice court); Seattle v. Jordan, supra (police court); Seattle v. Proctor, supra (police court); Seattle v. Morrow, 45 Wash.2d 27, 273 P.2d 238 (1954) (justice In fact, in Seattle v. Jordan, supra, 134 Wash. at 34-35, 235 P. 6, this court specifically declined to apply ......
-
State v. Strong
...v.] Bonds [98 Wash.2d 1] at 16 [653 P.2d 1024 (1982) ]; see also In re Richard, 75 Wn.2d 208, 449 P.2d 809 (1969); Seattle v. Morrow, 45 Wn.2d 27, 273 P.2d 238 (1954); Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 235 P. 6 (1925). Conversely, if the information states each statutory element of a crime, ......
-
City of Auburn v. Brooke
...756 (1910); Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 235 P. 6 (1925); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); Seattle v. Morrow, 45 Wash.2d 27, 273 P.2d 238 (1954); State v. Moser, 41 Wash.2d 29, 246 P.2d 1101 (1952).5 Leach, 113 Wash.2d at 694, 782 P.2d 552.6 A citation may be issue......