State v. Elwood
| Decision Date | 21 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26859. |
| Citation | 193 Wash. 514,76 P.2d 986 |
| Parties | STATE v. ELWOOD. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roscoe R. Smith and Chester A. Batchelor, Judges.
Warren Elwood was convicted of burglary and of being an habitual criminal, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Will Lanning, of Seattle, for appellant.
B. Gray Warner, Pros. Atty., and Henry Clay Agnew, Deputy Pros. Atty., both of Seattle (Paul Coughlin, of Seattle, of counsel), for the State.
Robert Graves and Warren Elwood were charged by information with the crime of burglary in the second degree. The trial resulted in separate verdicts finding each of them guilty as charged. Thereafter each of the defendants was charged with being an habitual criminal. The trial of Elwood upon this charge resulted in a verdict of guilty. We are not here concerned with the similar charge against Graves. Elwood moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and from the judgment and sentence entered appeals.
Some time between the early morning hours and one o'clock in the afternoon of November 15, 1936, a store of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, located on Roosevelt way in Seattle, was burglarized. November 15th was a Sunday. The safe, which contained more than $4,000 in currency and silver, was removed from the building, along with certain other articles. On the following Tuesday, Graves and the appellant were arrested and were subsequently charged as above indicated. A certain amount of money was taken from the Graves' automobile, as well as from the house of Elwood. In addition to this, some money was taken from the person of each of them. They were tried together and were represented by different counsel, neither of whom appears in this court for the appellant, Elwood.
The appellant's first contention is that he was prevented from having a fair and impartial trial, and was prejudiced by what he claims to be the 'hostile, critical and antagonistic attitude of the trial judge toward the counsel for defendants.' In support of this contention, the appellant, in his brief, lists many items which occurred during the time the State was introducing its evidence. Counsel for the appellant, as well as for Graves, made numerous and persistent objections, most of which were overruled, sometimes with a disapproval comment.
It is the duty of the trial court to see that proper decorum is observed, and that a trial proceeds in an orderly manner. The trial court in this case did nothing more than that. In fact after reading the record of what occurred, it is our view that the court would have been derelict in its duty had it done less than it did. We find no merit in this contention.
It is next contended that the court erred in refusing to pass upon the question as to whether the 'admissions or confessions of the defendants were voluntary or involuntary,' and in submitting that question to the jury. It may well be doubted whether the record shows anything that indicates a confession made by the appellant. But, if it should be presumed that there was such a confession, then whether it was produced by duress was a question upon which the evidence was in dispute, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dill v. Zielke
...this court to consider instructions that were not set out in full in appellant's opening brief. See, to the same effect, State v. Elwood, 193 Wash. 514, 76 P.2d 986, defendant was sentenced as an habitual criminal to penitentiary for life. See, also, Walker v. Copeland, 193 Wash. 1, 74 P.2d......
-
State v. Dennington
...or similarly disrupt proceedings. "It is the duty of the trial court to see that proper decorum is observed."10 State v. Elwood, 193 Wash. 514, 515, 76 P.2d 986 (1938). Thus, the judge had—and properly exercised—the statutory authority to find Dennington in contempt based on his behavior.C¶......
-
Elwood v. Smith
...Upon petitioner's appeal in the referred-to case, the Supreme Court of Washington found no error on this point. State v. Elwood, 1938, 193 Wash. 514, 76 P.2d 986. The defendant urges that the introduction of the evidence secured through the illegal search and seizure was a violation of his ......
-
State v. Clark
...467, 123 P. 795, 796. See, also, State v. Mann, 39 Wash. 144, 81 P. 561; State v. Smythe, 148 Wash. 65, 268 P. 133; and State v. Elwood, 193 Wash. 514, 76 P.2d 986. had a fair trial. His confessions and admissions, corroborated by abundant testimony and other evidence, sustain the verdict o......