State v. Fry
| Decision Date | 26 July 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31639,31639 |
| Citation | 234 P.2d 531,39 Wn.2d 8 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. FRY. |
Will Lanning, Bill Lanning, Seattle, for appellant.
Alden B. Whelan, Coupeville, for respondent.
By an information filed May 4, 1950, in the office of the clerk of the superior court for Island county, the prosecuting attorney of that county charged George W. Fry with the crime of manslaughter, committed as follows: 'He, the said George W. Fry, in the County of Island, State of Washington, on or about the 21st day of April, 1950, then and there being, did willfully, maliciously remove, damage and destroy an electric transmission line and apparatus connected with the operation thereof, by which act George W. Fry then and there willfully, unlawfully and in a wanton, reckless and grossly negligent manner inflicted grievous wounds upon the body of R. B. Bowyer from which wounds he then and there died; that the willful, unlawful and malicious destruction of said electric transmission line and apparatus connected with the operation thereof, by said George W. Fry was the direct and proximate cause of the death of R. B. Bowyer; Contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Washington.'
The defendant, having been arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty and, in due time, was put upon his trial. By its verdict, the jury found the defendant guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Defendant's counsel thereupon moved for arrest of judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial, this motion having been denied by order entered October 17, 1950. On the same day, the court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a maximum term of not to exceed twenty years, with a recommended minimum of eighteen months. The court then signed the formal written judgment and sentence, bearing date October 17, 1950, from which judgment the defendant has appealed to this court.
Error is assigned upon the court's refusal to 'grant appellant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty for the reason that the State had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt'; upon the court's instructions Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8; and upon the court's refusal to give appellant's proposed instructions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Appellant assigns no error upon any ruling of the trial court in connection with the introduction of evidence.
During the month of April, 1950, and apparently for some time prior to that date, appellant was foreman of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company's 'line crew,' and in charge of the company's distribution system in and around the town of Langley in Island county.
At about 9:30 p. m., April 21, 1950, the power lines in the town of Langley ceased to operate. A few minutes thereafter, C. T. Peterson, an officer of the state patrol, started an examination of the area north of the town. He testified that he proceeded along state highway No. 1-D and, about 10:00 p. m., at a point a little less than one and one-half miles sough of the town of Freeland, he saw the body of a man lying on the south shoulder of the road. The body was burning and the ankles rested across a fallen power line pertaining to the system of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company which, when in operation, carried about twelve thousand volts. After the body had been removed from contact with the power line, examination of a billfold identified the victim as Ransom B. Bowyer.
About three hundred fifty feet from the body and fifteen feet off the road, a flashlight was found which was introduced in evidence on the trial as exhibit A. A trouble light (exhibit B) was found near the power pole from which the wire had fallen, and nearby was also found an appliance (exhibit C), described as 'hot line cutters,' used for the purpose of cutting wire while it is carrying power. These cutters are a rather heavy two-handled appliance about three feet, eight inches in length.
Robert L. Bohnert, who was the first employee of the power company to arrive at the scene of the accident, testified:
The witness testified that he also discovered nearby a 'hand line' belonging to the company, and a pair of climbers. Neither of the two objects last mentioned were introduced in evidence on the trial, but the witness testified that he recognized the climbers as belonging to appellant.
Robert C. Haferkorn, called as a witness on behalf of the state, testified that he lived at Langley; that, during the spring of 1950, he was in the employ of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, having been so employed since January 6th of that year; that he was working as a ground man on the line crew; that, April 21, 1950, the crew stopped work at about 4:30 p. m.; that it was 'pay-day night,' and the men went to a tavern where they drank some beer; that he then went home, his wife having invited Mr. and Mrs. Jack Wardell to dine with them; that after dinner the parties talked for a while; and that, when the Wardells left, the witness then went to appellant's house. Asked what he and appellant talked about, the witness answered:
'
'The Court: And this Court is advising this witness that he is not compelled by law to answer any question, a truthful answer to which may tend to incriminate him: that he is the judge of whether such questions and answers will.
The witness then testified concerning the flashlight and tools that he and appellant had with them, his testimony continuing as follows:
.
The witness testified that he had noticed some fire starting where the power wire was lying on the ground, 'little fires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hummel, 64134–4–I.
...murder case, corpus delicti requires only existence of act forming basis of criminal charge and criminal agency); State v. Fry, 39 Wash.2d 8, 11–13, 16, 234 P.2d 531 (1951) (in manslaughter case, corpus delicti satisfied by circumstantial evidence of fact of death and testimony connecting d......
-
State v. Drew
...state to establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Little, 57 Wash.2d 516, 358 P.2d 120 (1961); State v. Fry, 39 Wash.2d 8, 234 P.2d 531 (1951); State v. Anderson, 10 Wash.2d 167, 116 P.2d 346 (1941). The causal connection between the death of the deceased and an unla......
-
State v. Myers, 34502
...form. It is sufficient when the substance is covered by other instructions. State v. Williams, 49 Wash.2d 354, 301 P.2d 769; State v. Fry, 39 Wash.2d 8, 234 P.2d 531; State v. Salle, 34 Wash.2d 183, 208 P.2d The third assignment of error is that 'The Court erred in giving manifestly inadequ......
-
State v. Lung, 38369
...be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Anderson, 10 Wash.2d 167, 116 P.2d 346 (1941), and State v. Fry, 39 Wash.2d 8, 234 P.2d 531 (1951). The difficulty in the case at bar is the fact that the body of the victim was never found. Is the body or some part thereo......