State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 19 March 1907 |
| Citation | 45 Wash. 694,89 P. 160 |
| Parties | STATE v. HILL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.
Jack Hill was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
E. J Grover, for appellant.
Virgil Peringer and George Liversey, for the State.
The appellant was found guilty of having forged the name of one Julia Raab to a check on the First National Bank of Bellingham, and, by means of the forged check, having obtained from the bank the sum of $295, the property of Julia Raab. This appeal is from the judgment pronounced upon the verdict of guilty.
The assignments of error set out in the brief can be reduced to two principal contentions: First, that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict of guilty; and, second, that the court erred in the admission of certain evidence. The contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict is not based upon a want of evidence on any material allegation; but on the claim that the evidence adduced was so far unworthy of credence on certain material allegations as not to justify the jury in believing it. The evidence criticised is that of the prosecuting witness. It was shown that she had been a prostitute at one time, and it is this fact that the appellant urges renders her testimony unworthy of belief. But the fact that she had been a prostitute did not in law disqualify her from testifying. Her evidence was competent, however much the fact shown may have affected her credibility; and, being competent, its credibility was for the jury, not the court. It may be true that this court has in certain extreme cases set verdicts aside where there was evidence tending to support the jury's finding on the ground that it thought the evidence unworthy of belief ( State v. Payne, 6 Wash. 563, 34 P. 317; State v. Pagano, 7 Wash. 549, 35 P. 387; State v. Newton, 39 Wash. 491, 81 P. 1002); but the general rule is that the weight and credibility of the evidence in a criminal case is for the jury, and that the appellate court will not disturb the verdict where the criminatory evidence is substantial, even though it might have found the other way were the question one over which it had original jurisdiction. State v. Maldonado, 21 Wash. 653, 59 P. 489; State v. Coates, 22 Wash. 601 61 P. 726; State v. Norris, 27 Wash. 453, 67 P. 983; State v. Bailey, 31 Wash. 89, 71 P. 715; State v. Kroenert, 13 Wash. 644, 43 P. 876; State v Murphy, 15 Wash. 98, 45 P. 729; State v Manville, 8 Wash. 523, 36 P. 470; State v Ripley, 32 Wash. 182, 72 P. 1036; State v. Fair, 35 Wash. 127, 76 P. 731, 102 Am. St. Rep. 897. The evidence in the case before us brings it within the general rule cited. Moreover, there was in the case corrobating evidence. The jury had before them the check itself, together with a number of the prosecuting witness' admittedly genuine signatures, and a comparison of these with the signature on the check bore on the question of the truthfulness of her story. But there was no legal necessity for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cahill, No. 30885-1-II (WA 3/14/2006)
...information for the jury to evaluate her credibility. See State v. Butler, 4 Wn. App. 303, 304, 480 P.2d 785 (citing State v. Hill, 45 Wash. 694, 89 P. 160 (1907)), review denied, 79 Wn.2d 1003 (1971). This evidence also impeached Cahill's early statements to police regarding his whereabout......
-
State v. Morden
... ... in his own behalf, he is 'subject to all the rules of law ... relating to cross-examination of other witnesses.' Rem. & ... Bal. Code, § 2148; State v. Peeples, 71 Wash. 451, ... 458, 129 P. 108; State v. Hill, 45 Wash. 694, 89 P ... 160; State v. Melvern, 32 Wash. 7, 72 P. 489; ... State v. Armstrong, 29 Wash. 57, 69 P. 392; ... State v. Duncan, 7 Wash. 336, 35 Pac, 117, 38 Am ... St. Rep. 888 ... 5 ... Among the instructions given by the court was one as ... ...
-
State v. Butler
...her testimony was still competent and if believed by the jury sufficient to support a conviction for the crime charged. State v. Hill, 45 Wash. 694, 89 P. 160 (1907). The credibility of the complaining witness was strenuously attacked by defendant's trial counsel. The jury, however, is the ......
-
State v. Crowder
...provision. State v. Duncan, 7 Wash. 336, 35 P. 117, 38 Am. St. Rep. 888; State v. Melvern, 32 Wash. 7, 72 P. 489; State v. Hill, 45 Wash. 694, 89 P. 160; State Peeples, 71 Wash. 451, 129 P. 108; State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 151 P. 832; and State v. Brooks, 89 Wash. 427, 154 P. 795. In mos......