State v. Casto
| Decision Date | 26 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 17232. |
| Citation | 207 P. 952,120 Wash. 557 |
| Parties | STATE v. CASTO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.
T. A Casto was convicted of aiding, counseling, and abetting in the commission of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. G Laffin, of Tacoma, for appellant.
J. W Selden and Leo Teats, both of Tacoma, for the State.
The information in this case charged the defendant with the crime of aiding, counseling, and abetting one Omer D. James and Elizabeth Hixon in the commission of the crime of robbery. The defendant has appealed from a judgment of sentence entered upon the verdict of the jury.
The chief reason assigned here for reversal is that, if the state proved any crime whatsoever, it was that of extortion, and not robbery. There was ample testimony from which the jury might have concluded that the three persons named agreed that at a certain hotel room in Tacoma Elizabeth Hixon should meet a certain soldier who they knew had some money on his person and that, while the soldier and the woman were together in the room, James should appear and pretend to be the brother or husband of the woman, and thereby obtain the money from the soldier. There was ample testimony to show that the appellant was one of the chief instigators of the crime and the moving spirit therein. According to the program, late at night, the woman visited the soldier's room in the hotel. She had been there but a few minutes when James, according to prior arrangement, knocked on the door and demanded admittance, and after some controversy he was allowed to enter. He thereupon represented himself to be closely related to the woman and abused her for being found in such circumstances, drew a revolver on the soldier and held it close to or against his person, and threatened to do him bodily injury, and at that time received from him a considerable sum of money.
There are in these facts all the elements of robbery. The chief distinction between robbery and extortion is that to commit the former the taking must be without the consent of the person robbed, while in extortion the taking is with consent. It does not require any argument or citation of authorities to show that, under the evidence in this case, it was for the jury to determine whether the money was taken from the soldier by force and under threats and against his consent.
Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pokini
...was induced by fear to part with his wallet was a proper subject of inference by the jury from the evidence adduced. See State v. Casto, 120 Wash. 557, 207 P. 952. Clearly, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to so conclude. It was sufficient to show all of the elements of the offense,......
-
State v. Pierce
...of its possessor. (See People v. Anderson, 59 Cal.App. 408, 211 P. 254; People v. Kruper, 340 Mich. 114, 64 N.W.2d 629 and State v. Casto, 120 Wash. 557, 207 P. 952.) In the crime of murder the degree may depend upon the minds of the perpetrators and separate defendants may be guilty of dif......
-
Com. v. Froelich
...making of some criminal charge whether false or otherwise. People v. Peck, 43 Cal.App. 638, 642, 643, 185 P. 881, 882, 883; State v. Casto, 120 Wash. 557, 207 P. 952; People v. Anderson, 59 Cal.App. 408, 426, 211 P. 254, 261, 262; McKeown v. State, 34 Okl.Cr. 381, 246 P. 659; 77 C.J.S. Robb......
-
Conley v. Miller
... ... E. Krause, in ... which garnishment in aid of judgment was sought against W. A ... Miller, as trustee for the Puyallup State Bank, and others ... From a judgment dismissing the garnishment proceedings, ... plaintiff appeals. Affirmed ... [208 P. 18] ... ...