State v. Green, 23713.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1932
• Docket Number: 23713.
• Parties: STATE v. GREEN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

9 P.2d 62

167 Wash. 266

STATE v. GREEN.

No. 23713.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 21, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.

Jack Green was convicted of grand larceny by receiving property known to have been stolen, and he appeals.

Reversed with directions.

Henry Clay Agnew, of Seattle, for appellant.

Robert M. Burgunder and A. E. Bailey, Jr., both of Seattle, for the State.

TOLMAN, C.J.

Appellant was charged with the crime of grand larceny committed by receiving property known to have been stolen.

He appeals from a conviction, and assigns two errors.

The prosecuting attorney confesses the first error assigned, and the appellant has in writing waived the second error assigned. If we should permit the parties by stipulation or agreement to determine the law, we might establish precedents which would be embarrassing. It therefore seems necessary in a case like this, notwithstanding the respondent's confession of error, for us to determine whether in fact error was committed.

It appears that the appellant was charged jointly with the person who had stolen the property, and, upon the trial of the appellant, that person was called as a witness by the state, and testified that he informed the appellant that the property was stolen, and that the appellant had full knowledge of the fact that it was stolen when he purchased it. On cross-examination it was drawn out that this witness had been four times convicted of felonies; and he was further interrogated as to the nature of the crimes of which he had been convicted. To this cross-examination the state interposed an objection, which was sustained by the trial court.

This ruling was undoubtedly error under the rule established by State v. Steele, 150 Wash. 466, 273 P. 742, 743 wherein the court, speaking through the late Chief Justice Fullerton, interpreted our statute (Rem. Comp. Stat. § 2290) as permitting former convictions to be shown by the record of conviction, by an authenticated copy thereof, by other competent evidence, or by the cross-examination of the witness; and then proceeded to say:

'It is at once apparent, of course, that if the record of the conviction is introduced, it will of necessity show the nature of the offense and the extent of the punishment, and, since cross-examination is only an alternate method of proving the conviction, we see no reason why the witness may not...