Shafsky v. State
| Decision Date | 04 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 4332,4332 |
| Citation | 526 P.2d 60 |
| Parties | Cary SHAFSKY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Harry L. Harris, Evanston, for appellant.
David B. Kennedy, Atty. Gen., Jerome F. Statkus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, Charles D. Phillips, County & Pros. Atty. Evanston, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE, McINTYRE and McCLINTOCK, JJ.
The defendant, Cary Shafsky, was convicted by a jury of assault while armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon in violation of § 6-70, subd. B, W.S.1957, 1973 Cum.Supp. He was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary and has appealed his conviction. We fail to find reversible error in the record and affirm the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon by the district court.
It is undisputed that Sherman E. Rollins, Chief of Police at Evanston, Wyoming, was patrolling in his patrol car on the streets in Evanston. Shafsky drove his vehicle behind the patrol car and then passed the patrol car and proceeded at a high rate of speed. Rollins pursued and caught Shafsky and signaled for him to stop, which Shafsky did. The Chief stopped directly behind the defendant's vehicle and walked up to such vehicle.
Shafsky was seated in his car with the window on his side rolled down. Rollins requested defendant to show his driver's license but received no response. A second request for defendant's license was made and the defendant stated he did not have a driver's license. Rollins then asked the defendant to get out of his car and accompany the officer to the patrol car. From that point on there is conflict in the evidence. However, pursuant to our appellate rule, 1 we accept as true the evidence favorable to the successful party, leaving out of consideration entirely evidence of the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith, and we give to evidence of the prosecution, as the successful party, every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from such evidence.
On that basis we find the facts to be, as testified by Rollins, that Rollins opened the car door to take Shafsky out. As he opened the door Shafsky turned in the seat and said, 'Hold it.' At that time he had a gun 'right against my (Rollins') stomach.' The officer further testified that Shafsky turned in the seat, apparently to get out, whereupon Rollins struck the gun with his left hand knocking it out of Shafsky's hand and to the back of the car and out into the dirt. The officer then struck defendant with a fist.
When Shafsky was questioned at the police station about having a gun, the testimony indicates his reply was that he took the gun and figured on killing a patrolman. He then explained that he did not want to kill a policeman especially, but due to the fact that Rollins was the one that stopped him, he figured Rollins was the one that would do.
The gun here involved was described as a .25 caliber automatic Haws pistol. When struck it came to rest near the front of the patrol car, which was behind Shafsky's vehicle. The cartridge clip had separated from the rest of the gun and was some six to eight inches from the gun itself. The clip was fully loaded with six bullets. It is defendant's theory that the clip was not pushed into a locking position and therefore the gun would not fire and for that reason would not be a dangerous or deadly weapon.
When the cartridge clip release button on this gun is used, it projects the cartridge clip approximately one-fourth inch out of its chamber in the gun's handle. The jury could believe, if the clip had been in a loose or free position, it would have separated where the gun was struck by Rollins and not where the gun struck the ground a considerable distance away. The jury probably inferred, and it had a right to do so, that when the gun struck the ground, the clip's release freed the clip, causing it to be expelled and causing the gun and clip to end up six to eight inches apart.
The release button, for loosening the clip, is quite prominent on a corner of the gun's handle. The button protrudes about one-eighth of an inch from the gun and could very easily have struck the ground when the gun landed, after being knocked out of defendant's hand.
We have already said, we accept as true the evidence favorable to the successful party, and we give to evidence of the prosecution, as the successful party, 'every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from such evidence.'
Inasmuch as it was for the jury to say whether the instrument here involved was a dangerous or deadly weapon when it was pointed at Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bean v. State
...61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), reh. denied, 444 U.S. 890, 100 S.Ct. 195, 62 L.Ed.2d 126 (1979), and applied by this Court in Shafsky v. State, 526 P.2d 60, 61 (Wyo.1974). As the Colorado Supreme Court has explained, “the old rule requiring the prosecution ‘to exclude every reasonable hypotheses oth......
-
Downs v. State
...been used in a few Wyoming criminal cases recently, But only in Wyoming. Hammer v. Town of Jackson, 524 P.2d 884, 886 (1974); Shafsky v. State, 526 P.2d 60 (1974); Horn v. State, 554 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1976); Cullin v. State, 565 P.2d 445, 448 (1977). It is an appellate rule of law used in Ci......
-
Otte v. State
...in conflict therewith, giving evidence of the State every favorable inference which may reasonably and fairly be drawn. Shafsky v. State, Wyo.1974, 526 P.2d 60; Bentley v. State, Wyo.1972, 502 P.2d 203; Sims v. State, Wyo.1972, 496 P.2d 185; Harris v. State, Wyo.1971, 487 P.2d 800; 3 West's......
-
Cullin v. State
...of the State every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn. Dryden v. State, Wyo.1975, 535 P.2d 483; Shafsky v. State, Wyo.1974, 526 P.2d 60; Bentley v. State, Wyo.1972, 502 P.2d 203; Sims v. State, Wyo.1972, 496 P.2d 185; Harris v. State, Wyo.1971, 487 P.2d 800; 3 West......