State v. Cornell

• Decision Date: 09 May 1929
• Docket Number: 21632.
• Citation: State v. Cornell, 152 Wash. 120, 277 P. 458 (Wash. 1929)
• Parties: STATE v. CORNELL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

277 P. 458

152 Wash. 120

STATE v. CORNELL.

No. 21632.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 9, 1929

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; W. O. Parr, Judge.

Perrin Cornell was convicted of having in his possession a narcotic drug. A new trial was granted on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and the State appeals. Order granting new trial affirmed.

J. A Adams, of Wenatchee, for the State.

A. N Corbin, of Wenatchee, and Geo. H. Crandell, of Seattle, for respondent.

PARKER J.

The defendant, Cornell, was charged by information filed in the superior court for Chelan county with the offense of unlawfully having in his possession a narcotic drug, which drug had been unlawfully acquired by him in chelan county. Trial in the superior court, sitting with a jury, resulted in a verdict finding Cornell guilty as charged. His counsel then moved for a new trial upon the ground, among others, of 'insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.' This motion was by the court granted and an order entered accordingly, awarding Cornell a new trial and specifically reciting the granting of the motion to be upon the ground of 'insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.' The state has appealed from that order to this court.

Since near the beginning of our statehood a party to a civil action has had the right to appeal to this court from an order of the superior court, favorable to his adversary, 'which grants a new trial.' Rem. Comp. Stat. § 1716, subd. 6. This court has repeatedly held that the granting of a new trial upon the grounds stated in the motion and order here in question rests in the discretion of the trial court, and that the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed upon appeal, except there clearly appear an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting such motion. The following of our comparatively recent decisions, and many others therein noticed, are to that effect: Getty v Hutton, 110 Wash. 429, 188 P. 497; Boulton v Seattle, 114 Wash. 234, 195 P. 11; Danielson v. Carstens Packing Co., 115 Wash. 516, 197 P. 617; Shead v. Riser, 136 Wash. 270, 239 P. 562; Maddock v. McNiven, 139 Wash. 412, 247 P. 467; Applewhite v. Wayne (Wash.) 277 P. 84.

By section 7, chapter 150, Laws of 1925, our Legislature gave the right of appeal in criminal actions to the state, as follows: 'The state may have a right of appeal...