State v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 14 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 39259,39259 |
| Citation | 435 P.2d 547,72 Wn.2d 737 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Marvin Raphael HARRISON, Appellant. |
Robert A. Castrodale, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Bruce Brunton, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a conviction of first-degree forgery. Briefs for the appellant have been filed, both by the appellant and by his counsel.
There is no question of guilt or innocence; the evidence amply sustains the verdict of guilty. The issues raised on this appeal relate only to claimed trial errors.
It is urged that it was error to admit in evidence,
(T)wo extraneous checks (Ex. 2 and 4) which defendant presented for payment around the same time (and at the same place) as the check on which he was charged. 1
The check on which the first-degree forgery was based was the personalized check 2 of L. C. Livingstone for $120, drawn on the Central Branch of the National Bank of Commerce, with the forged signature of 'L. C. Livingstone.' It was payable to the appellant, Marvin R. Harrison, who presented it at the Third and James Street Branch of the same bank, endorsed it, and received the money. We shall refer to this as check A.
Another check was admitted in evidence, likewise a personalized check of L. C. Livingstone for $75, likewise on the Central Branch, again with the forged signature of 'L. C. Livingstone.' It was payable to the appellant, Marvin R. Harrison, who also presented it at the Third and James Street Branch and received the money, but (through oversight on the part of the teller) without endorsing the check. We shall refer to this as check B.
A third check was admitted in evidence--a personalized check of H. L. Willers for $75, drawn on the Northgate Branch of the National Bank of Commerce, signed 'Harald L. Willers.' It was payable to the appellant, Marvin R. Harrison, who presented it at the Third and James Street Branch, endorsed it, and received the money. There was no testimony as to whether or not the signature of Harald L. Willers was a forgery. We shall refer to this as check C.
A handwriting expert testified that checks A and B were signed by the same person; that L. C. Livingstone did not write or sign either of them.
Checks B and C were offered for the purpose of handwriting comparison and as evidence to show identity, motive, common scheme or plan, and intent, and to negate any claim of accident or mistake. The trial court admitted them into evidence for all purposes.
No instruction was proposed or requested by the appellant, limiting the use to which they could be put in the considerations of the jury.
The right of the state to introduce evidence of other unrelated crimes under certain circumstances is well established, and this case falls within those circumstances. State v. Jeane, 35 Wash.2d 423, 213 P.2d 633 (1950). The exceptions to the general rule that evidence of other crimes is not admissible are numerous and cannot be enumerated categorically. The five exceptions to which we most frequently refer are not exclusive, and are merely the classifications into which most cases fall. These five exceptions are: (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) that absence of accident or mistake; (4) a common scheme or plan; or (5) identity. State v. Goebel, 36 Wash.2d 367, 369, 218 P.2d 300 (1950). Later cases listing the five exceptions include State v. Russell, 70 Wash.Dec.2d 528, 424 P.2d 639 (1967); State v. Leohner, 69 Wash.2d 131, 134, 417 P.2d 368 (1966); State v. Vindhurst, 63 Wash.2d 607, 612 388 P.2d 552 (1964); State v. Sayward, 63 Wash.2d 485, 488, 387 P.2d 746 (1963); State v. Evans, 57 Wash.2d 288, 292, 356 P.2d 589 (1960).
We are satisfied that checks B and C came within the permissible exceptions named. The appellant Harrison presented checks A, B, and C at the same branch bank within a 3-week period of time, and received the proceeds of each. Check B tends to establish a plan or scheme, a motive, intent, identity, and the absence of accident or mistake, as does check C if it be regarded as evidence of another crime. In any event, it tends to establish identity since the endorsement, being that of the defendant, provides a known signature for examination.
There was no error in admitting checks B and C in evidence.
It is urged that the deputy prosecutor overstepped the limits of proper argument in stating that the appellant 'had been at this type of thing for fifteen years,' and in urging upon the jury that more than one crime had been committed.
We would point out, first, that no exception was taken to any argument made by the prosecuting attorney, nor was there any ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fullen
...of a defendant if he has taken the stand, and the prior convictions have been brought out to impeach his credibility. State v. Harrison, 72 Wash.2d 737, 435 P.2d 547 (1967). Argument which misrepresents evidence and will mislead the jury is reversible error if the argument would implant the......
-
State v. Knapp
...the purpose is to show an effect on credibility, and evidence of the criminal record is properly before the jury. State v. Harrison, 72 Wash.2d 737, 740, 435 P.2d 547 (1967); State v. Fullen, 7 Wash.App. 369, 499 P.2d 893 On direct examination Kenneth had testified to two prior convictions ......
-
State v. Hames
...defendant's pocket at time of arrest to show common scheme, plan or design, and also to help establish identity; and State v. Harrison, 72 Wash.2d 730, 435 P.2d 547 (1967), to establish identity in a check In contrast to those cases where the acts of the defendant were in connection with pe......
-
State v. Murray
...proceeded upon the assumption that there is a rational connection between felony conviction and lack of veracity. See State v. Harrison, 72 Wash.2d 737, 435 P.2d 547 (1967). We have reasoned that one who will steal, rape or commit murder will also lie and that the jury can rightly conclude ......