City of Seattle v. Jordan
Decision Date | 14 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 18562. |
Citation | 235 P. 6,134 Wash. 30 |
Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE v. JORDAN. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Griffiths, Judge.
W. E Jordan was prosecuted for violation of an ordinance, and from the judgment he appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Crowder & Crowder, of Seattle, for appellant.
Thomas J. L. Kennedy, Ray Dumett, and A. C. Van Soelen, all of Seattle, for respondent.
The appellant was found guilty of the alleged crime of disorderly conduct in violation of ordinance No. 16046, §§ 1 and 61 of the city of Seattle. From the judgment and sentence upon the verdict this appeal is taken.
The provisions of the ordinance in question provide as follows:
Appellant was first found guilty in the police court, and upon an appeal to the superior court before evidence was taken moved to quash the complaint. The motion was denied and an exception allowed.
The complaint charged the offense in the following language:
'That on the 4th day of June, 1923, at the city of Seattle, in said King county, Washington, the said defendant did commit a misdemeanor--disorderly conduct--as follows, to wit, then and there being the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully engage in disorderly conduct tending to disturb the public peace and debauch the public morals. * * *'
At the close of the testimony the appellant again questioned the sufficiency of the complaint and moved for a new trial, which motion was denied.
It is the contention of the appellant that the complaint fails to charge an offense. It merely charges that appellant was guilty of conduct tending to disturb the public peace without alleging any specific act to enable appellant to know the nature of the offense charged, relying upon the case of Fink v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 28. In that case the defendant was charged with the offense of disorderly conduct, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said:
In the case of City of Huntington v. Pease, 56 Ind. 305, the court said:
It is the contention of respondent that appellant was charged with but one offense under the ordinance, that of disorderly conduct, and that all the other offenses mentioned under the ordinance are separate offenses, and that the complaint is sufficient under the rule announced in the case of State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, 88 P. 884, wherein the defendant was charged with the offense of 'disturbing the peace and quiet of the prosecuting witness.' Upon the denial of the motion to quash the complaint the court said:
It is also contended that an information or complaint in the language of the statute is sufficiently alleged.
State v. Williams, 73 Wash. 678, 132 P. 415.
It is also claimed by respondent that, since there is no definite,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...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 a criminal defendant can raise objections to an inf......
-
State v. Kjorsvik
...charge); State v. Hall, 54 Wash. 142, 102 P. 888 (1909) (robbery); State v. Catalino, 118 Wash. 611, 204 P. 179 (1922); Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 235 P. 6 (1925); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); State v. Taes, 5 Wash.2d 51, 104 P.2d 751 (1940); State v. Unosawa......
-
State v. Leach
...have been subject to the rule for over 60 years. See, e.g., Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 235 P. 6 (1925); State v. Moser, 41 Wash.2d 29, 246 P.2d 1101 (1952) (gross misdemeanor). See also State v. Ashker, 11 Wash.App. 423, 523 P.2d ......
-
State v. Kosewicz, s. 83682–5
...same. ¶ 16 A defendant may bring a constitutional challenge to the information at any time before final judgment. City of Seattle v. Jordan, 134 Wash. 30, 34, 235 P. 6 (1925). However, when a party challenges the information for the first time on appeal, we apply the liberal construction ru......