State v. Handy
| Decision Date | 01 March 1902 |
| Citation | 67 P. 1094,27 Wash. 469 |
| Parties | STATE v. HANDY. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.
F. N Handy was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses and appeals. Conditionally dismissed.
Walter S. Fulton, for the State.
The appellant was convicted in the superior court of the state of Washington for King county, on May 31, 1901, of the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. On July 29, 1901 final judgment was entered, sentencing the appellant to a term of two years in the penitentiary. Thereupon he gave notice of appeal to this court. This is a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that, since the taking of said appeal, appellant has broken jail and has become a fugitive from justice. This motion is supported by affidavits showing that on the 2d day of November, 1901, appellant broke jail and escaped from the custody of the sheriff of King county and that he is still a fugitive from justice, with his whereabouts unknown. It has been uniformly decided that an appellate court will refuse to hear a criminal case on an appeal or writ of error where appellant or plaintiff in error has escaped and is not within the control of the court below either actually by being in custody, or constructively by being out on bail. It was decided in People v Genet, 59 N.Y. 80, 17 Am. Rep. 315, that courts will not give their time to proceedings which, for their effectiveness, must depend upon the consent of the person charged with the crime, when such person has escaped out of custody, and no order can be enforced against him. In Com. v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543, it was said: It was said by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wences
...has recognized that absconding defendants warrant exceptional treatment in the course of criminal adjudication. See State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469, 470-71, 67 P. 1094 (1902) (appeal dismissed because defendant fled the jurisdiction); State v. Mosley, 84 Wash.2d 608, 610, 528 P.2d 986 (1974) (......
-
City of Seattle v. Klein
...of the FDD in foreign jurisdictions with its application in Washington. For example, the seminal Washington FDD case, State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469, 67 P. 1094 (1902), actually imported the rule from states that do not recognize a state constitutional right to appeal. This is unlike Washingt......
-
National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards v. Arnold
...of Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949. See also, Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32; State of Washington v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469, 67 P. 1094; People v. Genet, 59 N.Y. 80; Com. of Massachusetts v. Andrews, 97 Mass. The circumstances before us are, in some degree, c......
-
Harding v. State
... ... Commonwealth, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 677; Leftwich v ... Commonwealth, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 716; State v ... Conners, 20 W.Va. 1; State v. Sites, 20 W.Va ... 13; McGowan v. People, 104 Ill. 100, 44 Am. Rep. 87; ... Woodson v. State, 19 Fla. 549; City v ... Manix, 6 Kan.App. 105; State v. Handy, 27 Wash ... 469; Gentry v. State, 91 Ga. 669; Moore v ... State, 44 Tex. 595; State v. Carter, 98 Mo ... 431; State v. Johnson, 44 S.C. 556; State v ... Dempsey, 26 Mont. 504; all of which cases are directly ... in point; and see also: Anon., 31 Me. 592; State v ... Murrell, 33 S.C. 83; ... ...
-
A Constitutional Right to an Appeal: Guarding Against Unacceptable Risks of Erroneous Conviction
...102. Id. at 609, 528 P.2d at 986-87. Accord State ex rel. Soudas v. Brinker, 128 Wash. 319, 323, 222 P. 615, 616 (1924); State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469, 470, 67 P. 1094, 1094 (1902); State v. Nason, 20 Wash. App. 433, 434, 579 P.2d 366, 366 (1978). Cf. State v. Beck, 23 Wash. App. 640, 641-42......