State v. Heppell
| Decision Date | 30 August 1928 |
| Docket Number | 21170. |
| Citation | 148 Wash. 664,269 P. 1046 |
| Parties | STATE v. HEPPELL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.
Dan Heppell was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals. Affirmed.
E. C Dailey, of Everett, for appellant.
Charles R. Denney, of Everett, for the State.
Appellant was by a jury found 'guilty as charged' upon an information which set forth:
'They, the said Dan Heppell and Adelore Heppell, in the county of Snohomish, state of Washington, on or about the 30th day of June, 1927, did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously carry about with them, for the purpose of the unlawful sale of the same, a quantity of intoxicating liquor other than alcohol, to wit, moonshine whisky; the same being a liquid containing intoxicating properties and capable of being used as a beverage.'
From a judgment and sentence on the verdict, this appeal is prosecuted.
The principal arguments advanced here for the purpose of securing a reversal are: (1) That there was no evidence as to when, if at all, the offense was committed; and (2) that there was no evidence that the acts relied upon to prove the commission of the crime occurred in Snohomish county.
The state's evidence as to the time and place may be illustrated by the following quotation from the testimony The first witness for the state was William Youngblood. After having testified as to his name, the examination proceeded:
Two other deputy sheriffs testified as to the time and place in practically the same language, as did also two special deputies. Nothing in the cross-examination of either went to the subject of the time or place, and no testimony was offered by the defense which can in any manner aid the state's case in the particulars now under consideration.
It must be borne in mind that the appellant in no way objected to or challenged the sufficiency of this evidence before the case was submitted to the jury and the verdict returned; so, therefore, the jury found, by its verdict of 'guilty as charged,' that the offense was committed in Snohomish county on or about June 30, 1927, and the question thus presented after the verdict is: Was there evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn from evidence as to time and place sufficient to warrant the verdict?
The information was filed October 18, 1927, and the verdict was dated and filed November 10, 1927. The case was tried and the testimony referred to given on November 10, 1927, or earlier. The jury, as reasonable men, knew that, when June 30 was mentioned directly by witnesses for the state, and indirectly referred to by the defense, some particular June 30 was meant, and that there was no dispute between the parties as to the particular June 30. The information was before the jury, charging June 30, 1927, and the reasonable inference was that the witnesses all referred to the June 30 so charged. Moreover, since the appellant was taken in the act and was entitled to a speedy trial under the law, as all men know, it was a reasonable inference that the acts testified to as occurring on June 30 occurred on the immediately preceding June 30, which was June 30 of the current year, there being nothing to indicate that a different date was intended.
No case exactly in point has been cited by either side, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hurlbert
...Wash. 27, 153 P. 1058, 155 P. 746; State v. Wynn, 125 Wash. 398, 216 P. 872; State v. Neadeau, 137 Wash. 297, 242 P. 36; State v. Heppell, 148 Wash. 664, 269 P. 1046. appellants question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the specific objection being that there was no e......
-
State v. Tweedy, 23397.
...sufficiently proven under the prior decisions of this court. State v. Chin Sam, 76 Wash. 612, 136 [165 Wash. 286] P. 1146; State v. Heppell, 148 Wash. 664, 269 P. 1046. appellant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of the younger girl called by the s......
-
State v. Dennison
...may take judicial notice that cities are within the boundaries of the counties wherein they are located. In State v. Heppell, 148 Wash. 664, 667, 269 P. 1046, 1047 (1928), we said: 'In many cases it has been held that judicial notice will be taken of the location of a particular city or tow......
-
State v. Bennett
...96 Wash. 403, 165 P. 105; State v. Williams, 124 Wash. 160, 213 P. 921; State v. Neadeau, 137 Wash. 297, 242 P. 36; State v. Heppell, 148 Wash. 664, 269 P. 1046; State v. Hurlbert, 153 Wash. 60, 279 P. 123; State v. Tweedy, 165 Wash. 281, 5 335; State v. Hussey, 188 Wash. 454, 62 P.2d 1350.......