State v. Hulet, 22575.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | 22575. |
| Citation | 159 Wash. 72,292 P. 107 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. HULET. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; Wm. E. Campbell Judge.
W. G Hulet was convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, and of two former convictions for violation of the liquor laws, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. J Murphy, of Aberdeen, for appellant.
Austin M. Wade, of Aberdeen, A. P. Wilson, of Montesano, and John C. Graham, of Aberdeen, for the State.
Appellant was tried before a jury on an information charging, in count 1, possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, in count 2, unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and, also, the information charged two former convictions under the liquor laws of this state.
The jury found against him on count 1 of the information and, also, found that he had twice theretofore been convicted of the violation of the liquor laws, but acquitted him of the charge of unlawful transportation. From a judgment and sentence, based upon the verdict, of not less than one or more than five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, the defendant has appealed.
The first assignment of error is based upon the fact that the information is signed by A. P. Wilson, deputy prosecuting attorney, and the verification made by him recites that he is the person whose name is subscribed to the information. This seems to be sufficient under the statute and State v. Hewett, 103 Wash. 52, 173 P. 726.
In charging the former convictions the following language was used: 'As a part of this information, and as a part of counts one and two, and each of said counts, the court is informed and advised, and it is alleged as a fact, that the defendant W. G. Hulet has been heretofore convicted,' etc. The remainder of the charge being in the usual form and the date, the court, and the nature of the offense of which the defendant was convicted being set out with definiteness and certainty. The words 'the court is informed and advised' standing alone might, perhaps, partake of the nature of a recital, but being followed directly by the words 'and it is alleged as a fact,' the whole was amply sufficient to charge the prior convictions, and those convictions being properly charged in the information, there was no error in receiving in evidence the transcripts of the prior judgments.
Nor was it error to cross-examine the appellant upon the subject of the former convictions. Such convictions might affect his credibility, and having offered himself as a witness, he was subject to any proper test thereof.
Complaint is made of the reception of evidence on rebuttal tending to contradict a statement drawn from the appellant by the state on cross-examination as being an attempt to impeach him on a collateral matter. Apparently, from the record before us, this was not at all collateral to the charge upon which appellant was acquitted, but had a direct bearing on that issue and the evidence was therefore properly received.
We find, also, that there was ample evidence to take the case to the jury upon both charges, and the motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.
We come now to the questions which are most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...or his counsel first become aware of the publicity, it is waived. See State v. Roden, 216 Or. 369, 339 P.2d 438 (1959); State v. Hulet, 159 Wash. 72, 292 P. 107 (1930). Similarly, we do not think that a defendant should be permitted to refuse an opportunity to question the jurors as to thei......
-
State v. Bezemer
... ... 29; State v ... Morgan, 146 Wash. 109, 261 P. 777; State v ... Brames, 154 Wash. 304, 282 P. 48; State v ... Hulet, 159 Wash. 72, 292 P. 107 ... The ... record of the prior conviction was admissible, and was ... admitted, in this case, ... ...
-
Salinas v. State
...Cardenas v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889 (1961); People v. Keagle, 7 Ill.2d 408, 131 N.E.2d 74 (1956); State v. Hulet, 159 Wash. 72, 292 P. 107 (1930). In People v. Keagle, supra, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in a very similar case, In the case at bar defendant desired t......
-
State v. Whalon
...to the playing of the tape, either at the time it first learned of the incident, or in its motion for a new trial. In State v. Hulet, 159 Wash. 72, 292 P. 107 (1930), the Supreme Court reviewed an assignment of error dealing with an occurrence where a juror had lunch with a witness during t......