State v. Bible, 39856
| Citation | 77 Wn.2d 69,459 P.2d 646 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 39856,39856 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Earl BIBLE, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
William Merchant Pease, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, King County Pros. Atty., Jeff A. Morris, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
The appellant (defendant), James Earl Bible, was charged jointly with his brother, Harold Lee Bible and Charles Fortson, with the crime of robbery. All were found guilty as charged and judgment and sentence was entered upon the jury verdict. James Earl Bible appeals independently.
Shortly after midnight on March 21, 1967, the three defendants hailed a taxicab driven by Francis D. Gordon, in downtown Seattle. James Bible was seated to the right in the rear seat with his brother Harold to his left. Charles Fortson was in the front seat next to the cab driver. They asked to be taken to the High Point area of Seattle. Enroute they requested the cab driver to stop at a store so they could get some cigarettes. The driver stopped at Nifty's Cafe about 12:30 a.m. The three went into the restaurant and came back in a few minutes, taking the same seats in the cab they had occupied before. After proceeding south on 35th Street S.W. toward High Point, the cab driver was told to turn onto a side street where he stopped after the statement, 'This will be okay here.'
Upon the turning on of the dome light in the cab, Charles Fortson, in the front seat, at knife point, ordered the cab driver to produce his wallet. Harold Bible, directly behind the driver, gave 'a metallic pointed jab' into the neck of the driver. The driver handed his wallet to Fortson, who passed it to one of the two in the back seat. The cab driver was then directed by Fortson to stay where he was for 5 minutes, or in Fortson's words, 'I'll blow your head off.' All three defendants then ran from the cab in a westerly direction.
The cab driver immediately radioed his dispatcher. The police were rushed to the area where they promptly apprehended Fortson and Harold Bible. Both men were easily identified by the cab driver because Fortson had a goatee, and Harold Bible was wearing a turban. As the apprehended men were being placed in separate prowler cars, the defendant James Bible walked up to the prowler cars and asked what was going on. The police officers asked what his interest was and he replied, 'That's my brother you have in the back of the patrol car,' while pointing to Harold Bible. Upon further inquiry by the officers he stated his name and said he was 19 years of age. The police officers noticed a strong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath and immediately placed him under arrest for 'minor consuming.'
The cab driver identified the defendant thereafter at a police lineup as one of the three in his cab at the time of the robbery. The cashier at Nifty's Cafe also identified the defendant as one of the three men who entered the premises shortly before the time the robbery was committed.
This appeal follows the entry of judgment and sentence upon the jury verdict.
The defendant first contends there is insufficient evidence to support the entry of a judgment and sentence for robbery against him. He argues on appeal that he was a victim of circumstances, caught in a situation over which he had no control by the spur-of-the-moment decision of his older brother Harold, and the older Charles Fortson, to commit the robbery. He contends that evidence of his participation in the robbery does not go beyond mere suspicion or probability and is therefore insufficient to warrant his conviction.
This contention is without merit in view of the entire record. The defendant James Bible entered the cab with the other defendants; he accompanied them into the restaurant for cigarettes and returned with the defendants to the cab. He was present when the robbery was committed and fled with his brother and Fortson after the cab driver was warned by Fortson to stay for 5 minutes or he would blow his head off.
The jury was entitled to conclude from this evidence that the defendant's unexplained conduct was not that of an innocent man, and that his very presence in the cab was of assistance in the commission of the crime.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...of conflicting interests. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 69, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); State v. Bible,77 Wash.2d 69, 71, 459 P.2d 646 (1969). It is well established, however, that there must be some prejudice to a defendant before a denial of the effective assistance of......
- State v. Moore, 39847
-
State v. Kennedy, 790--II
...a possibility that the defendant may have been actually prejudiced, he has been denied his right to effective counsel. State v. Bible, 77 Wash.2d 69, 459 P.2d 646 (1969); Lollar v. United States, We do not find even a possibility that the defendant may have been actually prejudiced. Richard......