State v. Frye, 34738
| Decision Date | 19 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 34738,34738 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Harold W. FRYE, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
J. A. Kavaney, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, James A. Noe, Jr., Bellevue, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery. The information filed by the state reads, in part:
'He, the said Harold W. Frye, in the County of King, State of Washington, on or about the 8th day of January, 1958, then and there being armed with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a rifle, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by force and violence to the person of one El Dores Carlson, and by putting the said El Dores Carlson in fear of injury to her person and against her will then and there did take from the presence of the said El Dores Carlson, certain personal property of value, to-wit: lawful money of the United States, the property of the Olympic Hotel; and she, the said El Dores Carlson then and there being in lawful possession of said property; * * *'
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. However, a brief review of a part of the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that his contention is without merit.
The record shows that El Dores Carlson, mentioned above, and another person were employed by the Olympic Hotel at the time of the robbery; that both persons positively identified the appellant as the man who committed the robbery. Two other witnesses, customers in the hotel at the time of the robbery, testified that they were 'fairly certain' that appellant was the man who had perpetrated the robbery. It was further established that on the morning of the robbery the appellant had a rifle in his possession, and that on the same morning he had purchased shells for this rifle.
In State v. Rubenstein, 1912, 69 Wash. 38, 124 P. 135, 136, the court said:
'* * * It is the province of the jury in criminal cases to pass on the weight and sufficiency of the evidence; and when the court finds there is substantial evidence of a fact it must be left for the jury to say whether its probative force meets the standard required for a conviction, whether it convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.'
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, was asked on cross-examination if he had ever been convicted of any crimes. After he answered in the affirmative, the attorney for respondent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christensen
... ... to pass on the weight and sufficiency of the evidence." ... State v. Frye , 53 Wn.2d 632, 633, 335 P.2d 594 ... (1959) (quoting State v. Rubenstein , 69 Wash. 38, ... 40, 124 P. 135 (1912)). Under the ... ...
-
State v. Christensen
...In a criminal case, "[i]t is the province of the jury . . . to pass on the weight and sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Frye, 53 Wn.2d 632, 633, 335 P.2d 594 (1959) (quoting State v. Rubenstein, 69 Wash. 38, 40, 124 P. 135 (1912)). Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial ......
-
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Doyle
...60 Wash.2d 122, 372 P.2d 193 (1962); Johnson Serv. Co. v. Roush, 57 Wash.2d 80, 355 P.2d 815 (1960); State v. Frye, 53 Wash.2d 632, 335 P.2d 594 (1959). From this record we conclude that Ocean Spray lawfully acquired title to all of the property upon which Doyle's drying shed was located an......
-
State v. Brewster, 39608
...admits what the record would show. In State v. Steele, 150 Wash. 466, at 469, 273 P. 742, at 743 (1929) (approved State v. Frye, 53 Wash.2d 632, 335 P.2d 594 (1959)), this court It is at once apparent, of course, that if the record of the conviction is introduced it will of necessity show t......