State v. Hoyle

• Decision Date: 24 January 1921
• Docket Number: 15962.
• Citation: 194 P. 976,114 Wash. 290
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HOYLE.

194 P. 976

114 Wash. 290

STATE v. HOYLE.

No. 15962.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 24, 1921

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; R. M. Webster, Judge.

Emily Hoyle was convicted of taking and detaining a child under 16 with intent to conceal it from its parents, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Dennis McClung, of Spokane, for appellant.

Joseph B. Lindsley and James Emmet Royce, both of Spokane, for the State.

HOLCOMB, J.

Appellant appeals from judgment on a verdict under an information charging:

'That the said defendant, Emily Hoyle, on or about the 1st day of December, 1919, in Spokane county, Wash., then and there being, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take and detain a child under the age of 16 years, to wit, one Jane Doe Charest, of the age of two weeks with intent to conceal the said child from her parents or other persons having lawful care and control of her.'

The trial court had overruled appellant's demurrer to the information upon the general ground that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the laws of Washington. Upon conviction appellant moved for a new trial and arrest of judgment, both of which motions were denied. All these rulings are here urged as errors.

The statute upon which the information is founded is section 2410, Rem. Code:

'Every person who shall willfully----

'(1) Seize, confine or inveigle another with intent to cause him without authority of law to be secretly confined or imprisoned, or in any way held to service, or with intent to extort or obtain money or reward for his return, release, or disposition, or to lead, take, entice away, or detain, a child under the age of sixteen years with intent to conceal him from his parent, guardian or other person having lawful care or control of him, or to steal any article upon his person. * * *'

Appellant contends that the information under consideration is fatally defective, because it fails to inform her from whom she is charged with kidnapping the child, and does not conform to the requirements of the statute.

It is correct, as urged by appellant, as stated in State v Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 P. 729, and subsequent cases that it is the law of criminal procedure:

'* * * That the accused must be apprised by the indictment, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him, to the end that he may prepare his defense, and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. An indictment not so framed is defective, although it may follow the language of the statute.'

On the same line, in State v. Ackles, 8 Wash. 462, 36 P 594, we said that the above requirement, under the Constitution, can only be met by setting forth in the information 'every fact constituting an element of the offense charged.' And in prosecutions for larceny from the person and robbery we have held that to charge the offense only in the language of the statute was not sufficient, when the accused might have committed every act charged in the information and yet not have been guilty of robbery (or of larceny from the person), because ownership of the property taken was not alleged in some person other than the defendant, or the control and dominion over the property taken. State v. Dengel, 24 Wash. 49, 63 P. 1104; State v. Morgan, 31 Wash. 226, 71 P. 723; State v. Hall, 54 Wash. 142, 102 P. 888.

Kidnapping is not larceny nor robbery. At common law it was defined to be the forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman or child from their own country and sending into another. It...