State v. Bengson, 23310.

Citation5 P.2d 1040,165 Wash. 612
Decision Date15 December 1931
Docket Number23310.
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. BENGSON.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Otis W. Brinker, Judge.

Joe Bengson was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Fred H. Dore, of Seattle, for appellant.

Robert M. Burgunder and Theodore S. Turner, both of Seattle, for the State.

PARKER J.

The defendants, White and Bengson, were, by information filed in the superior court for King county, jointly charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree, as follows 'They, said Jack White and Joe Bengson, and each of them in the County of King, State of Washington, on or about the 7th day of January, A. D. 1931, with intent to commit a crime therein, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter the store building of John Lavenger known as the Granger Dry Goods Store, located at Selleck, said county and state, the same being a building wherein property was then and there kept for use, sale and deposit.' White pleaded guilty. The trial of Bengson proceeded in the superior court, resulting in a verdict finding him guilty as charged, upon which final judgment of conviction was rendered against him, from which he has appealed to this court.

The jury was fully warranted by the evidence in viewing the facts pointing to the guilt of Bengson to be, in substance, as follows: At the time in question, John Lavenger owned and operated a store in the town of Selleck, situated in King county some thirty miles southeast of Seattle. He lived in his residence across the street from his store. Raymond Lofgren, employed as a clerk in Lavenger's store, also lived at Lavenger's residence. There was an electric burglar alarm connecting the store with the residence. On January 7, 1931 at about 9 o'clock in the evening, the store was closed for the day, all doors and windows being locked. At about 1:30 o'clock that night, the burglar alarm sounded in the residence. Heeding that warning, Lavenger and Lofgren hurriedly got up and went to the store. They found two burglars in the store, who evidently had entered through a side window. As the two burglars were coming out of the door, which evidently could be opened from the inside carrying goods from the store, they were confronted by Lofgren, who recognized Bengson as one of them. Lofgren did not get a sufficiently good view of the other to be able to identify him. The burglars immediately ran back into the store and escaped through a window, carrying some goods from the store with them. Lavenger did not get a sufficiently good view of them to identify either of them. About 10 o'clock the next evening, a Buick sedan was stolen in the town of Ravensdale, situated some six miles west of Selleck. The police of Seattle being notified of the stealing of the Buick sedan, two of their officers, who were patroling the southern portion of the city in a prowler car, found the Buick sedan there on the side of one of the outlying streets, at about 1 o'clock that night. Bengson was lounging in the front seat of the sedan immediately behind the steering wheel....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Edwards v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 6, 1943
    ...21, 142 S.E. 105, 108; People v. Childs, 127 Cal. 363, 59 P. 768. 23 Branson v. Commonwealth, 92 Ky. 330, 17 S.W. 1019; State v. Bengson, 165 Wash. 612, 5 P.2d 1040; Webb v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 284, 278 S.W. ...
  • State v. Richard
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1971
    ...for cautionary instruction is necessary to preserve for appellate review the matter of unlawful comment. See e.g., State v. Bengson, 165 Wash. 612, 5 P.2d 1040 (1931); State v. Kelsey, 46 Wash.2d 617, 283 P.2d 982 (1955). We need not decide to what extent Lampshire overruled prior inconsist......
  • State v. Kelsey
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1955
    ...or to caution the jurors against its possible influence upon them, appellant cannot now successfully claim error. State v. Bengson, 1931, 165 Wash. 612, 615, 5 P.2d 1040. The appellant excepted to instruction No. 26, which defined the terms, 'drugs' or 'medicinal preparation.' The evidence ......
  • State v. Little, 8421
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1956
    ...permits the inference of possession by both where only one of two proven conspirators in crime has actual possession. State v. Bengson, 165 Wash. 612, 5 P.2d 1040; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah 39, 201 P. 1030. There must, of course, be something else in the evidence to connect defendant with ......
  • 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