State v. Bixby, 29663.
Decision Date | 14 February 1947 |
Docket Number | 29663. |
Citation | 177 P.2d 689,27 Wn.2d 144 |
Parties | STATE v. BIXBY. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1947.
Frank W. Bixby was convicted of subornation of perjury, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; E. D Hodge, judge.
John A Kellogg, Joseph T. Pemberton, C. E. Abrams, J. W. Kindall and R. W. Greene, all of Bellingham, for appellant.
Frank W. Radley, Frank M. Allyn, Boone Hardin and Tom A. Durham, all of Bellingham, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of subornation of perjury. His motion for a dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence at the close of the state's case was denied. Motions for a directed verdict, in arrest of judgment, for a new trial, and for a suspended judgment were likewise denied, whereupon the defendant appeals.
Subornation of perjury is defined in Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2360, as follows: 'Every person who shall willfully procure another to commit perjury, in either degree, or to offer any false evidence, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury and shall be punished in the same manner as if he had himself committed the perjury so procured or offered the false evidence so offered.'
The requisites for an indictment for perjury or subornation of perjury are set forth in Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2072: 'In an indictment or information for perjury, or subornation of perjury, it is sufficient to set forth the substance of the controversy or matter in respect to which the crime was committed, and in what court or Before whom the oath alleged to be false was taken, and that the court or person Before whom it was taken had authority to administer it, with proper allegations of the falsity of the matter on which the perjury is assigned; but the indictment or information need not set forth the pleadings, record or proceedings with which the oath is connected, nor the commission or authority of the court or person Before whom the perjury was committed.'
Appellant contends that the information is fatally defective and hence the motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted. The body of the information is as follows:
Appellant contends that since one found guilty of subornation of perjury is punished in the same manner as if he had himself committed the perjury, he is therefore a principal as defined in Rem.Rev.Stat. § 2260, as follows: '* * * and every person who directly or indirectly counsels, encourages, hires, commands, induces or otherwise procures another to commit a felony, gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, is a principal, and shall be proceeded against and punished as such * * *.'
He argues that the words of the above section, 'or otherwise procures another to commit a felony,' are modified by the prior words 'directly' or indirectly' and that an allegation of the means or manner by which the procuring was done must be set forth. Since no overt acts by him were directly alleged, the appellant contends the allegation that he procured Rose Chapin to commit the crime of perjury is a mere conclusion and the omission of such material allegations as to the means employed is a fatal defect in the information.
Similar objections were raised in State v. Porter, 105 Iowa 677, 75 N.W. 519, a case presenting a parallel set of facts and decided on statutes very like our own. We quote in extenso from this well-reasoned opinion and follow the rule therein laid down.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tippett, 86SA3
... Page 1183 ... 733 P.2d 1183 ... The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Ronald B. TIPPETT, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 86SA3 ... Neff, 149 Pa.Super. 513, 27 A.2d 737 (1942); State v. Bixby, 27 Wash.2d 144, 177 P.2d 689 (1947). Courts have ruled that a judgment cannot be proved by parol ... ...
-
State v. Beck
... ... State v. Sedam, 1955, 46 Wash.2d 725, 284 P.2d 292; State v. Bixby, 1947, 27 Wash.2d 144, 168, 177 P.2d 689; State v. Verbon, 1932, 167 Wash. 140, 8 P.2d 1083 ... Appellant points out no error in ... ...
-
Chamberlain v. State
... ... In State v. Bixby, 27 Wash.2d 144, 177 P.2d 689, 706, the court said in effect that when the person entitled to privilege takes the stand and testifies there is a ... ...
-
People v. Marsh
... ... Page 304 ... prove the truth of the statements, but to show the mental state of the defendants, i. e., that they believed the machines did cure. Such letters, reports, and ... (See also State v. Bixby, 27 Wash.2d 144, [58 Cal.2d 740] 177 P.2d 689; Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686, 13 S.E.2d 820, 825 ... ...
-
Parent-child Privilege: Constitutional Right or Specious Analogy?
...States v. Funk, 84 F. Supp. 967, 969 (E.D. Ky. 1949); Allred v. State, 554 P.2d 411, 417 (Alaska 1976); State v. Bixby, 27 Wash. 2d 144, 177 P.2d 689 (1947); Coburn, supra note 8, at 622-32; Fisher, The Psychotherapeutic Professions and the Law of Privileged Communications, 10 Wayne L. Rev.......