State v. Hultenschmidt
| Decision Date | 17 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 44050,44050 |
| Citation | 87 Wn.2d 212,550 P.2d 1155 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. William F. HULTENSCHMIDT and Rosalie Hultenschmidt, Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Clarence H. Fidler, Port Angeles, for petitioners.
Craig Ritchie, Pros. Atty., Port Angeles, for respondent.
Defendants William and Rosalie Hultenschmidt were convicted of grand larceny. The convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Division II. This court granted review of the unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of whether admission in evidence of defendants' prior convictions was proper.
The facts are these. Under a rental agreement, the defendants, husband and wife, occupied a mobile home owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Allen. Defendants' relationship with the Allens changed from good to poor during their occupancy of the mobile home, and defendants were eventually evicted for nonpayment of rent. A chest, lamp, medicine cabinet and rug, belonging to the Allens, were on the premises during defendants' occupancy. The chest, lamp and medicine cabinet disappeared when defendants vacated the premises and the rug disappeared shortly thereafter. The chest, lamp and medicine cabinet had a collective value of over $75; the rug had a value of over $75.
The defendants were jointly charged with grand larceny. On direct examination of Rosalie Hultenschmidt, she was asked by her counsel if she had plead guilty to a charge of insurance fraud in 1973. She replied in the affirmative. During cross-examination, the state offered in evidence the statement she signed when she entered her plea of guilty (State's Exhibit 10), and a certified copy of the minutes of the Clallam County Superior Court Record showing entry of this plea of guilty (State's Exhibit 11). The defendant made no objection to State's Exhibit 11, but objected to State's Exhibit 10 as being prejudicial to defendant because of its voluminous nature. The court sustained the defendant's objection and admitted only State's Exhibit 11 in evidence. The state next offered in evidence a Transcript of Judgment from Clallam County District Court (State's Exhibit 12), showing her plea of guilty in 1966 to a charge of petit larceny. The defense offered a general objection to this exhibit, but it was admitted in evidence by the court.
William Hultenschmidt also testified at the trial. On direct examination, he was asked if he had ever plead guilty to a charge of second degree burglary. He said yes. During his cross-examination, the state offered in evidence State's Exhibits 14--22, prior conviction records of the defendant. Defendant objected on the ground that '(h)alf of them are involved in motor vehicle citations which certainly have nothing to do with the credibility of the witness.' The court sustained the objection, and admitted in evidence only State's Exhibits 14--16, consisting of a copy of an Order Deferring Imposition of Sentencing in Clallam County Superior Court with respect to his plea of guilty to second degree burglary in 1963, a copy of a 1967 Judgment and Sentence in Clallam County Superior Court of Mr. Hultenschmidt for grand larceny, and a copy of a 1967 Modified Judgment and Sentence in Clallam County Superior Court of Mr. Hultenschmidt for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (second offense), while operator's license suspended. The remaining exhibits were refused by the court on the ground 'that none of those things involve moral turpitude.'
Both defendants were convicted by the jury of grand larceny. The Court of Appeals, Division II, affirmed the conviction. The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions, and (2) admission in evidence of the prior criminal convictions was proper under RCW 10.52.030 ().
The defendants' petition for review contends the trial court erred in admitting over objection the copies of judgments and court records of the unrelated convictions of the defendants, because there is nothing in the record to show the state was offering these exhibits for impeachment purposes. 1
We first note that no objection was made to State's Exhibits 11, 14, 15, and 16. This amounts to a waiver of the defendant's objection to this evidence, and the objection will not be considered on appeal. State v. Valpredo, 75 Wash.2d 368, 373, 450 P.2d 979 (1969). Only a general objection was made to State's Exhibit 12, and it was not error of the trial court to overrule it. White v. Fenner, 16 Wash.2d 226, 246, 133 P.2d 270 (1943). In addition, the issue of prior convictions was first raised by the defendants on direct examination, and they cannot complain that the state went into the matter further on cross-examination. State v. Ryan, 192 Wash. 160, 165, 73 P.2d 735 (1937); Walker v. Herke, 20 Wash.2d 239, 244--45, 147 P.2d 255 (1944). In any case, the record shows the court committed no error in admitting these exhibits. The court stated that State's Exhibit 12 was admitted '(f)or the purpose of impeachment . . .' In addition, the court instructed the jury without exception by defendant that prior convictions 'may be considered by you only in determining what weight or credibility should be allowed (defendants') testimony as a witness in this case.' The instruction became the law of the case. Wilkins v. Grays Harbor Community Hosp., 71 Wash.2d 178, 182, 427 P.2d 716 (1967). The exhibits, therefore, were properly admitted under RCW 10.52.030. State v. Dickey, 181 Wash. 249, 251--52, 42 P.2d 790 (1935).
Defendant finally contends RCW 10.52.030 enacted in 1909 is unconstitutional so that the prior conviction testimony was erroneously admitted. The objection based on claimed unconstitutionality was not made either in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals nor was it made in defendants' petition for review. It was first and briefly argued in oral argument before this court. The objection raises an important issue. See, e.g., State v. Murray, 86 Wash.2d 165, 171--72, 543 P.2d 332 (1975) (Rosellini, J., concurring); State v. West, 285 Minn. 188, 198, 173 N.W.2d 468 (1969) (Otis, J., dissenting). Much criticism has been directed against the use of prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Renfro
...was raised later during direct examination, this allowed the prosecutor to inquire into the nature of the offense. State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wash.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976). The defendant contends Hultenschmidt is not applicable as it was decided under the old evidentiary rules and at th......
-
State v. Sanchez, No. 31704-4-II (Wash. App. 9/12/2006)
...admissible under ER 609(a). State v. Renfro, 96 Wn.2d 902, 908, 639 P.2d 737, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 842 (1982); State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wn.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976). As our Supreme Court stated with approval, Hultenschmidt `stands for the still valid proposition that once a subject h......
-
State v. Williams
...that Lee disposes of the issue when apparently it was neither briefed nor otherwise addressed in argument. See State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wash.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976). Moreover, there is other language in Lee that tends to address the issue as being evidentiary in nature. For example, ......
-
Whitehead v. State
...United States v. Buchanan, 659 F.2d 878 (8th Cir.1981); State v. Sinclair, 57 N.J. 56, 269 A.2d 161 (1970); and State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wash.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976). Thus, the weight of authority and of practice supports the view that a defendant is entitled to a cautionary instruct......
-
Table of Cases
...Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 721 P.2d 902 (1986): 12.8(7) State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 110 P.3d 192 (2005): 5.3(3)(a) State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wn.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976): 16.2(1) State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 287 P.3d 584 (2012): 13.3(2)(a) State v. Hurst, 173 Wn.2d 597, 269 P.3d 1023......
-
§ 16.2 Basis for Decision
...even if the issue is of constitutional magnitude. State v. Johnson, 119 Wn.2d 167, 170-71, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992); State v. Hultenschmidt, 87 Wn.2d 212, 550 P.2d 1155 (1976). For a discussion of how the scope of review is affected by whether claimed errors have been raised in the trial court,......