State v. Burnett

• Decision Date: 05 June 1930
• Docket Number: 22190.
• Citation: 157 Wash. 288,288 P. 918
• Parties: STATE v. BURNETT.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

288 P. 918

157 Wash. 288

STATE v. BURNETT.

No. 22190.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 5, 1930

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.

Josie Burnett, by verdict of jury, was found guilty as charged by information with the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell. Motion in arrest of judgment on ground that no proof had been offered tending to show guilt of the crime charged was granted, and the State appeals.

Affirmed.

G. E Clark, of Yakima, for the State.

Snively & Bounds, of Yakima, for respondent.

TOLMAN J.

Respondent was charged by information with the offense of possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell. On a plea of 'not guilty,' she was tried and by the verdict of the jury found guilty as charged. Thereupon a motion in arrested judgment was interposed upon the ground that no proof had been offered tending to show guilt of the crime charged. This motion was granted, and the state has appealed.

The motion appears to have been based upon subdivisions 3 and 4 of rule IX of this court, 140 Wash. xli, which read:

'3. Judgment may be arrested on the motion of the defendant for the following causes:

'(1) No legal authority in the grand jury to inquire into the offense charged, by reason of its not being within the jurisdiction of the court;

'(2) That the facts as stated in the indictment, do not constitute a crime or misdemeanor;

'(3) That there has been no proof of some element of the crime for which the defendant has been tried, whether the trial was upon indictment or information.

'4. When judgment is arrested in any case and there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant can be convicted of an offense properly charged, the court may order the defendant to be recommitted or admitted to bail anew to answer a new indictment or information; provided, that, if judgment was arrested because there was no proof of some element of the crime for which the defendant was tried, the defendant shall be dismissed.'

State v. Davis, 137 Wash. 288, 242 P. 31, was decided before the adoption of the rule just quoted and prior to the enactment of Rem. Comp. Stat., 1927 Supp. § 2183-1, but that case recognizes that the office of such a motion is to test the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury, and we think the rule must be construed as intended to accomplish that very same purpose. The later s...