State v. Kaukos
Decision Date | 15 December 1919 |
Docket Number | 15480. |
Citation | 109 Wash. 20,186 P. 269 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. KAUKOS et al. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; Geo. D. Abel Judge.
Sam Kaukos and George Karaiskos were convicted of operating a gambling game, and they appeal. Affirmed.
W. H Abel, of Montesano, for appellants.
J. E Stewart, of Aberdeen, and J. A. Hutcheson, of Montesano, for the State.
The information in this case charged the defendants jointly with the crime of opening, conducting, carrying on, and operating as managers, owners, or dealers, a gambling game known as 'stud-poker,' on or about the 23d day of March, 1919, in the county of Grays Harbor, state of Washington. The information is substantially in the words of the statute. The defendants were tried jointly, found guilty, and sentenced. From that judgment they appeal.
The testimony tended to show that some time prior to the date alleged in the information the two defendants leased the premises in which it is charged the crime was committed, and that at about the same time the defendants purchased, or otherwise acquired, furniture for the leased premises; that on the 19th day of March, 1919, the defendant George Karaiskos was running the game and dealing and the defendant Sam Kaukos was present and, at least a part of the time, playing in the game as any one else; that on March 20, 1919, the defendant Sam Kaukos was running the game and dealing; that on March 22, 1919, the defendant George Karaiskos was operating the game and dealing and the defendant Sam Kaukos was present and participating in the same as did others present; and that on the 23d of March the defendant Sam Kaukos was operating the game and dealing and the defendant George Karaiskos was present and playing in the game as others were playing. When the evidence was all in, the court required the prosecuting attorney to elect as to which date he would select, and the date mentioned in the information, to wit, March 23d, was selected.
The statute under which the defendants were charged reads as follows:
'Every person who shall open, conduct, carry on or operate, whether as owner, manager, agent, dealer, clerk, or employé, and whether for hire or not, any gambling game or game of chance played with cards, dice, or any other device, or any scheme or device whereby any money or property or any representative of either, may be bet, wagered or hazarded upon any chance, or any uncertain or contingent event, shall be a common gambler, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than five years.' Section 2469, Rem. 1915 Code, vol. 1.
The chief point raised by the appellants is that the court committed prejudicial error in receiving testimony concerning the operation of the game on days other than on the day named in the information. The courts have found it very difficult to lay down any very precise rules concerning the admission of testimony tending to prove other and distinct offenses. We have not seen any better or clearer discussion of the matter than is contained in State v. Gottfreedson, 24 Wash. 401, 64 P. 524, wherein Judge Dunbar used the following language:
* * *'
There are, at least, two essential elements which must be proven in order to justify conviction in this case. One is that the defendants opened, conducted, carried on, or operated the game at the time charged in the information; and the other is that they did so either as owners, managers, agents, dealers, clerks, or employés. We think the testimony to which objection is made was clearly admissible, not only for the purpose of showing that the defendants were operating the game on the date mentioned in the information, but also for the purpose of showing their interest in the same as owners or managers. The testimony shows that on the day fixed in the information Sam Kaukos was actively engaged in operating the game, and that at that particular time the other defendant, George Karaiskos, was present and playing. Testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...connected with the crime charged and furnish evidence material to that crime. State v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326; State v. Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; v. Sigler, 116 Wash. 581, 200 P. 323. The general rule is succinctly stated in State v. Anderson, 10 Wash.2d 167, 116 P.2d 3......
-
State v. Everitt
... ... whatever shown in the case to convict appellant of the felony ... charged herein under the statute and under our decisions in ... State v. Hardwick, 63 Wash. 35, 114 P. 873; ... State v. Moser, 94 Wash. 465, 162 P. 582; State ... v. Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; State v ... Smith, 58 Wash. 235, 108 P. 618; and State v ... Gaasch, 56 Wash. 381, 105 P. 817 ... It is ... true, as was said in the Gaasch Case, supra, that the objects ... of the felony statute was to suppress gambling resorts ... ...
-
State v. Dinas
...of another distinct offense.' State v. Geddes, 22 Mont. 68, 55 P. 919. See State v. Sigler, 116 Wash. 581, 200 P. 323; State v. Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326. 'Where the motive for the crime charged is the concealment of some other crime either by ......
-
State v. Moore, 30928.
... ... evidence of a collateral crime. That objection was not ... brought to the attention of the trial court, but it is ... clearly without merit. The evidence was admissible to show ... appellant's interest in the premises. State v ... Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; State v ... Owen, 161 Wash. 324, 297 P. 169 ... The ... admission of exhibit No. 8 could not have been prejudicial, ... as appellant on cross-examination admitted receiving it from ... the sheriff and the chief of police, and ... ...