State v. Anderson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court[5 Wash. 351] HOYT, J.
Citation5 Wash. 350,31 P. 969
Decision Date12 December 1892
PartiesSTATE v. ANDERSON.

31 P. 969

5 Wash. 350

STATE
v.
ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 12, 1892


Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. HUMES, Judge.

Otto Anderson was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur E. Griffin, for appellant.

John F. Miller, Pros. Atty., and A. G. McBride, Dep. Pros. Atty., for the State.

[5 Wash. 351] HOYT, J.

Defendant was duly convicted of the crime of burglary, and from the sentence therefor prosecutes this appeal. Two errors are assigned, the first of which raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and the second the sufficiency of the information.

The ground upon which the information is attacked is that it does not affirmatively appear, upon the face thereof, that there was no grand jury in session, nor that the defendant had been committed by a magistrate on said charge. Neither of these objections can avail appellant. It is true that certain facts must exist before the prosecuting attorney gets jurisdiction of the case in such a manner as to be authorized to file an information against the defendant, but the statute nowhere makes it necessary that the existence or nonexistence of such facts should be made to appear upon the face of the information.

As to the first objection above stated, it is claimed that there was no sufficient proof that the defendant entered the building in question for the purpose of committing a crime. We are satisfied from the proofs that the defendant unlawfully entered said building; and if the provisions of Pen. Code,§, [1] can be sustained, the jury were justified in presuming the criminal intent from the fact of such unlawful entry. Besides, we think there was direct testimony tending to show that such entry was for the purpose of committing petit larceny. The proof showed, not only that the building had been unlawfully entered, but that the appellant, with another person, was actively engaged in ransacking a trunk found therein, and was putting aside certain articles of value found in said trunk, with the evident intention of taking them away. For this reason, we do not think that we should disturb this verdict, even although we should come to the conclusion that the presumption provided for in the section above referred to could not be [5 Wash. 352] drawn from the fact of unlawful entry. We see no reason, however, for holding that the legislature exceeded its power in providing that the presumption of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Grimmett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 1, 1920
    ...R. A., N. S., 626; Wigmore, Ev., sec. 1354; Faith v. State, 32 Tex. 373; State v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 551, 45 P. 147; State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969; State v. Lawson, 40 Wash. 455, 82 P. 750.) RICE, J. Morgan, C. J., Budge, J., Concurring. BUDGE, J., Concurring in Part and Dissen......
  • Bayless v. United States, No. 21059.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 19, 1967
    ...unexplained act of breaking into another's building, has been provided by statute." At this point the author cites State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969 In the Washington statutes, Section 9.19.010 defines first degree burglary. Section 9.19.020, the section with which we are here ......
  • State v. Livengood, No. 1534--II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • August 20, 1975
    ...273 (1971); State v. Reid, 74 Wash.2d 250, 444 P.2d 155 (1968); State v. Durning, 71 Wash.2d 675, 430 P.2d 546 (1967); State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969 (1892). However, the statute must now meet the test announced in State v. Odom, 83 Wash.2d 541, 520 P.2d 152 (1974), and State v. ......
  • State v. Potello, 2235
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 13, 1911
    ...here intended by the legislature, though, perhaps, not as aptly, expressed as it might be. [40 Utah 68] In the case of State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969, the court, in speaking of a statute which provided that a presumption of a criminal intent should follow the proof of an unlawful......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • State v. Grimmett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 1, 1920
    ...R. A., N. S., 626; Wigmore, Ev., sec. 1354; Faith v. State, 32 Tex. 373; State v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 551, 45 P. 147; State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969; State v. Lawson, 40 Wash. 455, 82 P. 750.) RICE, J. Morgan, C. J., Budge, J., Concurring. BUDGE, J., Concurring in Part and Dissen......
  • Bayless v. United States, No. 21059.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 19, 1967
    ...unexplained act of breaking into another's building, has been provided by statute." At this point the author cites State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969 In the Washington statutes, Section 9.19.010 defines first degree burglary. Section 9.19.020, the section with which we are here ......
  • State v. Livengood, No. 1534--II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • August 20, 1975
    ...273 (1971); State v. Reid, 74 Wash.2d 250, 444 P.2d 155 (1968); State v. Durning, 71 Wash.2d 675, 430 P.2d 546 (1967); State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969 (1892). However, the statute must now meet the test announced in State v. Odom, 83 Wash.2d 541, 520 P.2d 152 (1974), and State v. ......
  • State v. Potello, 2235
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 13, 1911
    ...here intended by the legislature, though, perhaps, not as aptly, expressed as it might be. [40 Utah 68] In the case of State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969, the court, in speaking of a statute which provided that a presumption of a criminal intent should follow the proof of an unlawful......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT