State v. Hunter, s. 259--
| Decision Date | 02 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | 260--I,Nos. 259--,s. 259-- |
| Citation | 3 Wn.App. 552,475 P.2d 892 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Lee HUNTER and Eardie Brooks, and each of them, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Phil Mahoney, court appointed, Seattle, for appellants.
Charles O. Carroll, King County Pros. Atty., Michael DiJulio, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
James Lee Hunter and Eardie Brooks were tried jointly and found guilty by a jury of the crime of robbery. Both appeal.
Four assignments of error are made. Appellants first assign error to the trial judge's denial of their motion for a continuance. The motion was based upon the fact that their attorney had to argue a case before the Supreme Court during the course of the trial, thus necessitating an interruption of the trial. Appellants fail to mention this assignment at any point in their brief after they listed it as an assignment of error. Because of this failure to make any argument in support of this assignment and because it is not meritorious on its face, we do not consider this assignment. State v. Frye, 53 Wash.2d 632, 335 P.2d 594 (1959); State v. Williams, 49 Wash.2d 354, 301 P.2d 769 (1956).
Appellants next assign error to the trial judge's denial of their motion for separate trials. The granting of separate trials under RCW 10.46.100 is discretionary. The trial judge's determination will not be disturbed unless he manifestly abused his discretionary prerogative. State v. Davis, 73 Wash.2d 271, 438 P.2d 185 (1968). We find nothing in the record to support the claim that the denial of separate trials in this case was an abuse of judicial discretion.
Sometime during the evening before the last day of the 3-day trial, Brooks, who was at liberty on bail, was arrested and jailed pursuant to a bench warrant issued by a district court judge in another case in which Brooks was a defendant. Brooks assigns error to the trial judge's denial of his motion for a mistrial or for a continuance. Brooks claims that his arrest frustrated him in his search for alibi witnesses. He charges the prosecuting attorney with misconduct because of the occurrence.
It was not established that the prosecuting attorney was even aware of Brooks' arrest until the following morning. Brooks cites no authority to support his claim of error. 'Where no authority is cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search for authority and will not give consideration to such errors unless it is apparent on the face of the assignments that they have merit.' State v. Alden, 73 Wash.2d 360, 363, 438 P.2d 620, 623 (1968). We f...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Suarez
... ... different conclusions therefrom, the question is for the ... jury.'" State v. Hunter , 3 Wn.App. 552, ... 554, 475 P.2d 892 (1970) (quoting State v. Reynolds , ... 51 Wn.2d 830, 834, 322 P.2d 356 (1958)). Viewed in a ... ...
-
State v. Suarez
...or is such that reasonable minds may draw different conclusions therefrom, the question is for the jury.'" State v. Hunter, 3 Wn. App. 552, 554, 475 P.2d 892 (1970) (quoting State v. Reynolds, 51 Wn.2d 830, 834, 322 P.2d 356 (1958)). Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, t......
-
State v. Christie
...conflicting or is such that reasonable minds may draw different conclusions therefrom, the question is for the jury.' State v. Hunter, 3 Wash.App. 552, 475 P.2d 892 (1970) quoting from State v. Reynolds, 51 Wash.2d 830, 834, 322 P.2d 356 At the trial, the service station attendant identifie......
-
State v. Lane, s. 381--
...and which, in turn, presents a question for the jury. State v. Reynolds, 51 Wash.2d 830, 322 P.2d 356 (1958); and State v. Hunter, 3 Wash.App. 552, 475 P.2d 892 (1970). A police officer testified he had seen both defendants together the day prior to the cardroom robbery. He further testifie......