State v. Dooley

• Decision Date: 11 December 1914
• Docket Number: 12122.
• Citation: 82 Wash. 483,144 P. 654
• Parties: STATE v. DOOLEY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

144 P. 654

82 Wash. 483

STATE v. DOOLEY.

No. 12122.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 11, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.

E. M Dooley was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A. D. Martin and Wm. R. Bell, both of Seattle, for appellant.

John F Murphy and Edgar J. Wright, both of Seattle, for the State.

FULLERTON J.

The appellant was convicted in the superior court of King county of the crime defined in section 2324 of the Code (Rem. &amp Bal.) and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. The evidence on the part of the state tended to show the following facts: That in October, 1913, the appellant testified on behalf of the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries then on trial in the superior court of King county. That a verdict for the plaintiff was returned in the action and a motion for a new trial made by the defendant. That while this motion was pending the appellant approached a representative of the defendant and offered, in consideration of $500 and three days' time in which to get away, to make an affidavit for the use of the defendant in support of its motion to the effect that his testimony given at the trial was manufactured for the occasion, with the aid and connivance of the attorney for the plaintiff, and that it was wholly false and untrue. That the offer was brought to the attention of the attorney for the defendant, who immediately informed the trial judge and prosecuting attorney thereof and that a plan was formulated by which the appellant's purpose could be more definitely ascertained. That to this end a meeting was appointed at the attorney's office at which the appellant appeared, and that while there, in the presence of the defendant's representative, its attorney, a stenographer, and within the hearing of a deputy prosecuting attorney and a deputy sheriff, he dictated from notes in his possession an affidavit, in form and matter in accordance with his original proffer. That the affidavit was immediately transcribed, corrected in a few minor particulars by the appellant, and a notary called before whom the verification could be made. That the affidavit was then presented to the appellant for signature and verification, and that he refused to sign or verify it, unless he was first paid the sum of money originally demanded as a consideration therefor.

In this court the appellant makes two principal contentions: First, that the venue of the offense was not sufficiently proven; and, second, that the facts shown do not constitute an offense within the meaning of the statute under which the conviction was had.

The first contention is without merit. While it is true that a perusal of the testimony fails to disclose that any witness testified directly that the transactions which they related occurred in King county, yet the testimony is replete with expressions showing the fact. This is sufficient. Whether the venue is properly laid, like any other fact necessary to be shown to sustain a conviction, is to be gathered from the evidence as a whole, and competent evidence of the fact sufficient to satisfy the jury, satisfies the law. State...