State v. Finrow
| Decision Date | 09 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37623,37623 |
| Citation | 66 Wn.2d 818,405 P.2d 600 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Jack Eugene FINROW, Respondent. |
George A. Kain, Pros. Atty., Spokane, Donald C. Brockett, Deputy Pros. Atty., for appellant.
Harvey Erickson and Ross Worthington, Spokane, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a justice court conviction of vagrancy. 1 He had been charged with being a 'lewd and disorderly person.'
The state now appeals from an order of dismissal entered at the close of the state's evidence.
for the reason that the plaintiff, State of Washington, did not produce sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proving that the defendant was a lewd and disorderly person. * * *
By a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, defendant (respondent) admits its truth, and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it. He also requires us to interpret the evidence in the light most prejudicial to him and most favorable to the state. State v. Siemion, 54 Wash.2d 17, 337 P.2d 715 (1959); State v. Coy, 40 Wash.2d 112, 241 P.2d 205 (1952).
Shortly after midnight defendant stopped his car at a 'share-a-ride' station in Spokane and picked up the complaining witness, a 22-year-old airman, who was seeking a ride to the Deep Creek Air Force station. Because of the sordid nature of the testimony, we do not set it forth verbatim. It is sufficient to say that the two men entered into a conversation in which defendant twice made indecent comments and suggestions, each time accompanied by an offensive and distasteful touching with his hand of the complaining witness's leg. It does not, as defendant suggests in his appellante brief, take a pervert to understand the import of his remarks and actions.
The complaining witness objected after each occurrence and asked to be let out of the automobile following the second. After reaching his destination, the complaining witness notified the police, who apprehended defendant shortly thereafter. The deputy sheriff who arrested defendant testified that defendant related to him substantially the same conversations to which the complaining witness testified, and that he (defendant) said, 'Well, I had been drinking, and I had done this on occasions before when I had been drinking.' (Italics ours.)
It cannot be doubted that it is within the police power of the legislature to define who are vagrants and to prescribe punishment for those who shall come within the meaning of such enactments, which are generally regarded as regulatory measures to prevent crime. Their purpose is to subject persons whose habits of life are such as to make them objectionable members of society to police regulations promotive of the safely or good order of the community. State v. Grenz, 26 Wash.2d 764, 175 P.2d 633 (1946); 55 Am.Jur. Vagrancy, §§ 2, 3.
RCW 9.87.010 contains 14 subdivisions covering the subject of vagrancy. Defendant was charged under subdivision (7), which provides:
Every * * * (7) Lewd, disorderly or dissolute person 2 * * * is a vagrant, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
The term 'lewd and disorderly' does not have a statutory definition, but, as the court said in State v. Harlowe, 174 Wash. 227, 235, 24 P.2d 601, 604 (1933):
They are words, however, of common and general use, and are easily understood by men and women of average intelligence.
In its oral opinion, the trial court found that defendant's suggestive remarks were 'certainly indecent.' Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.) defines the terms as follows:
Indecent. Offensive to common propriety; offending against modesty or delicacy; grossly vulgar; obscene Lewd, unseemly; unbecoming; indecorous; unfit to be seen or heard.
Disorderly. Contrary to the rules of good order and behavior; violative of the public peace or good order; turbulent, riotous or Indecent. (Italics ours.)
See City of Seattle v. Franklin, 191 Wash. 297, 70 P.2d 1049 (1937), in which 'disorderly conduct' is fully discussed and defined.
Basically, the question on appeal is: did the state's evidence establish a prima facie case? It is, of course, a question of law for the court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kueny
...v. Wilson, 124 Iowa 264, 266, 99 N.W. 1060 (1904); Woodruff v. State, 11 Md.App. 202, 273 A.2d 436, 438 (1971); State v. Finrow, 66 Wash.2d 818, 405 P.2d 600, 602 (1965); State v. Nelson, 178 N.W.2d 434, 437 (Iowa 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 864, 27 L.Ed.2d 826 (1971). See a......
-
Johnson v. State
...56 Cal.2d 308, 14 Cal.Rptr. 289, 363 P.2d 305; Dominguez v. City & County of Denver, 147 Colo. 233, 363 P.2d 661; State v. Finrow, 66 Wash.2d 818, 405 P.2d 600; Fonte v. State, 213 Tenn. 204, 373 S.W.2d 445. See also 91 C.J.S. Vagrancy § 2(c): 12 A.L.R.3d 1443, at In 55 Am.Jur. Vagrancy § 4......
-
State v. Jones
...order and behavior, which is violative of the public peace. Seattle v. Franklin, 191 Wash. 297, 70 P.2d 1049 (1937); State v. Finrow, 66 Wash.2d 818, 405 P.2d 600 (1965); State v. Levin, 67 Wash.2d 988, 410 P.2d 901 (1966). As so construed and applied we can perceive no fatal It is recogniz......
-
State v. Maloney, 40882
...order and behavior, which is violative of the public peace. Seattle v. Franklin, 191 Wash. 297, 70 P.2d 1049 (1937); State v. Finrow, 66 Wash.2d 818, 405 P.2d 600 (1965); State v. Levin, 67 Wash.2d 988, 410 P.2d 901 (1966). As so construed and applied we can perceive no fatal In State v. Oy......