State v. Burgess, 38988
| Decision Date | 13 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 38988,38988 |
| Citation | 430 P.2d 185,71 Wn.2d 617 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Clay BURGESS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Critchlow, Williams & Ryals, Edward B. Critchlow, Richland, for appellant.
C. J. Rabideau, Pros. Atty., Laurence Moore, Deputy Pros. Atty., Pasco, for respondent.
Defendant Clay Burgess was convicted of rape and second degree assault. On this appeal from such conviction he alleges and argues as error (1) the trial court's failure to suppress a statement signed by defendant without benefit of counsel, and (2) the trial court's permitting such statement to be identified by the defendant and portions thereof read by the prosecuting attorney. Defendant's counsel on this appeal is appointed counsel and is not the counsel who represented him at the trial.
The facts which the jury had a right to believe are ample and sufficient to sustain the verdict for the assault and forcible rape charges. To meet the assignments of error, it need only be pointed out that the incidents herein involved occurred in and near East Pasco during the early morning hours of September 18, 1965. At approximately 8:30 that same morning, the defendant was taken into custody for questioning. He was questioned concerning the events of the preceding evening by an officer of the Pasco Police Department. Some 2 hours after being taken into custody, the defendant signed the statement which is involved in the assignments of error. The challenged statement is not a confession, but rather is quite exculpatory in nature in that defendant therein attempts to explain the circumstances of his having taken the complaining witness to her home earlier that morning.
Prior to trial, defendant made timely motion to suppress this statement, as well as certain other materials which might have been used as evidence at the trial. After hearing held in accordance with Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 101.20W, RCW vol. O, the motion was denied.
The prosecution did not use the exculpatory statement during its case in chief. During presentation of the defense, the defendant took the stand and, during the course of his testimony, defendant's counsel questioned him concerning the existence of the statement and as to some of the contents thereof. On cross-examination, the state examined the defendant as to inconsistencies between his testimony and facts related in the prior statement. The statement was not introduced into evidence.
The record before us of the hearing on the pretrial motion to suppress establishes that there was substantial evidence that the statement signed by the defendant was voluntarily made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis, 39376
...evidence, as to the admissibility of the statement. State v. Nesrallah, 66 Wash.2d 248, 401 P.2d 968 (1965); State v. Burgess, 71 Wash.Dec.2d 604, 430 P.2d 185 (1967); (2) 'substantial evidence' is defined as that character of evidence which would convince an unprejudiced thinking mind of t......
-
State v. Hoyt, 8545-0-I
...we hold that the confession and the evidence obtained from the search were admitted properly at trial. See State v. Burgess, 71 Wash.2d 617, 618-19, 430 P.2d 185 (1967); State v. Nesrallah, 66 Wash.2d 248, 401 P.2d 968 (1965). 3. Photographic Identification Third, Hoyt argues that the victi......
-
State v. Redmond
...Hoffman, 64 Wash.2d 445, 392 P.2d 237 (1964) and find ample evidence to support the findings of the trial court. See State v. Burgess, 71 Wash.2d 617, 430 P.2d 185 (1967). Ordinarily we would not have considered this case on its merits for the reason that trial counsel (not the counsel on a......
-
State v. Hill, 40612
...we think the first assignment of error is without merit. State v. Hoffman, 64 Wash.2d 445, 392 P.2d 237 (1964); State v. Burgess, 71 Wash.2d 617, 430 P.2d 185 (1967); State v. Cadena, 74 Wash.Dec.2d 186, 443 P.2d 826 Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidenc......