State v. Byers
| Decision Date | 01 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19500. |
| Citation | 136 Wash. 620,241 P. 9 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BYERS. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Abel, Judge.
Jack Byers was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed with instructions to grant new trial.
Henry Clay Agnew, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ewing D. Colvin and Cordelia M. Thiel, both of Seattle, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and from sentence thereon brings the case here for review.
Several assignments of error are urged, the only one of which appears to be well taken has to do with an instruction given by the trial court. The appellant was charged with taking by force and violence, from the person of one Hughes, $13. There was much evidence showing that appellant and the witness Hughes had been drinking just prior to the robbery. It was the contention of appellant that both of them were badly intoxicated at the time; the appellant testifying that his condition of mind was such that he could not remember distinctly what happened, that he was so drunk that 'I kind of knew what I was doing and yet I didn't know what I was doing,' and that he would not 'swear to what was what on any of it.' One of the issues framed under the evidence revolved around the condition of the witness Hughes and of appellant at the time. The trial court gave an instruction on intoxication as follows:
'Under the laws of this state, voluntary intoxication whether caused by drink or drugs, existing at the time of the commission of a crime, is not a defense to a charge of crime therefore, if you find from the evidence that the defendant at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, was voluntarily intoxicated, the fact of such intoxication would not excuse him from any act which he may have done.'
Appellant complains of this instruction because by its express language it took away from the defendant his defense that he was so intoxicated that he did not remember what took place, and therefore could not have formed any intent to steal. Section 2258, Rem. Comp. Stat., provides as follows:
'No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such purpose, motive or intent.'
It will be seen from this statute that voluntary intoxication, if it be sufficient to prevent the forming of an intent to commit the offense, is a defense in all those cases where intent is a necessary element to constitute the crime charged. Robbery includes the elements of the crime of larceny, one of which is an intent to deprive the owner or other persons of the things taken. State v. Dengel, 24 Wash. 49, 63 P. 1104; State v. Hatch, 63 Wash. 617, 116 P. 286.
'Since robbery includes larceny, the element of intent to steal or animus furandi is as essential in robbery as it is in larceny.' 34 Cyc. 1797.
The rule that intoxication may be a defense to a charge where it is shown that the intoxication was sufficient to prevent the forming of an intent to steal in robbery cases is well stated in 23 R. C. L. 1155, as follows:
'So it has been held, on an information for robbery, that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haynes
...for failing to define the 'felonious intent' required in robbery as an intent to steal. This question was raised in State v. Byers, 1925, 136 Wash. 620, 241 P. 9, and was disposed of adversely to appellant's contention. We adhere to that For the reasons indicated hereinbefore, the judgment ......
-
State v. Russell
...denied, 109 Wash.2d 1027 (1988); State v. Faucett, 22 Wash.App. 869, 870-71, 593 P.2d 559 (1979); see also, e.g., State v. Byers, 136 Wash. 620, 622, 241 P. 9 (1925); State v. Carter, 4 Wash.App. 103, 109, 480 P.2d 794 (1971), review denied, 79 Wash.2d 1001 (1971); WAYNE R. LAFAVE AND AUSTI......
-
State v. Jensen
...and in some of them it is held that intoxication may be shown as negativing the capacity to entertain such an intent. State v. Byers, 136 Wash. 620, 241 P. 9; State v. Garney, 122 Mont. 491, 207 P.2d 506; People v. Sanchez, 35 Cal.2d 522, 219 P.2d 9; People v. Pineda, 41 Cal.App.2d 100, 106......
-
State v. Strong
...nor can it, that intent to deprive the victim of the property taken is a necessary element of the crime of robbery. State v. Byers, 136 Wash. 620, 622, 241 P. 9 (1925); State v. Faucett, 22 Wash.App. 869, 871, 593 P.2d 559 (1979). Furthermore, a construction of a statute by the court is as ......
-
Washington's Diminished Capacity Defense Under Attack
...Code. Comment, Hornbook to the Code, supra note 50, at 178. 69. State v. Schneider, 158 Wash. 504, 291 P. 1093 (1930); State v. Byers, 136 Wash. 620, 241 P. 9 (1925). 70. See generally State v. Ferrick, 81 Wash. 2d 942, 506 P.2d 860 (1973); State v. White, 60 Wash. 2d 551, 374 P.2d 942 (196......