State v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 23 June 1911
• Citation: 63 Wash. 617,116 P. 286
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HATCH.

116 P. 286

63 Wash. 617

STATE v. HATCH.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 23, 1911

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

Harry Hatch was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. E Hawkins and Welch & Crotty, for appellant.

John F Murphy, Hugh M. Caldwell, and Herbert B. Butler, for the State.

MORRIS J.

Appellant was tried upon an information charging grand larceny, and appeals from a judgment rendered upon a verdict of guilty.

The facts, in so far as they are pertinent to the errors assigned, are these: The prosecuting witness, Roden, met the appellant and two others in a saloon at Seattle. Roden was a stranger to the other three. He and Johnson, one of the others, sat at a table, when appellant and the fourth man came up, and, sitting down at the same table, began a game of cards. Upon completing the game, one of the three suggested the four play a game for the drinks. The cards were dealt and Roden received four aces and a jack. Some one suggested that they bet on the relative values of the four hands. Roden did not want to bet, as he had no money with him, but he did have some with an aunt at Tacoma. Johnson then went to the bartender and obtained four envelopes in which the four hands were placed, and the envelopes put in the saloon safe. Roden and Johnson then went to Tacoma and obtained $240 of Roden's money from his aunt, and returned to Seattle, to the same saloon, where appellant and the fourth man were awaiting them. They left that saloon and entered another, when appellant produced the envelopes, and Roden looked at his hand and saw it was the same. Appellant wanted him to bet. He refused, saying he did not want to. He was told he had to, and to hurry up. He says the other three put their hands in their hip pockets, and, fearing some injury, he took out his money and placed it on the table, when appellant grabbed it and ran, Roden running after him, until he came across a policeman, to whom he complained of being robbed, and appellant was arrested and the money found on his person.

The first error assigned is the admission of the evidence regarding the dealing of the four hands of cards, upon the ground that it tended to show a scheme or conspiracy on the part of the three men, and nothing of that nature was charged in the information. The evidence was competent. There could be no valid objection to it, because it suggested something not definitely set forth in the information, so long as it was relevant to the crime charged. 'If evidence is relevant upon the general issue of guilt or innocence, no valid reason exists for its rejection, merely because it may prove or may tend to prove that the accused committed some other crime, or may establish some collateral or unrelated fact.' Underhill on Criminal Evidence,§ 90.

It was also part of the res gestae. Such evidence would have been competent upon an issue of conspiracy to rob, or to show the formation of a scheme to unlawfully deprive, Roden of his money. But it was also admissible as a part of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense charged, and as touching the criminal intent of the subsequent act. Under our statutes (sections 2601 and 2605 Rem. & Bal. Code), grand larceny, the crime here charged, may be committed in 10 different ways. The information charged but one of these 10 varieties. So long as the evidence supported the particular variety charged, which was the felonious taking with intent to deprive and defraud the owner of his money, it was not a ground of objection that the evidence also tended to...