State v. Kelch
Decision Date | 13 March 1917 |
Docket Number | 13918. |
Citation | 163 P. 757,95 Wash. 277 |
Parties | STATE v. KELCH. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.
Charles W. Kelch was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Chas W. Kelch, of Seattle, for appellant.
Alfred H. Lundin, John D. Carmody, and Joseph A. Barto, all of Seattle, for the State.
The defendant in this case was by information charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, the defendant appeals.
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in appointing as counsel for the appellant an attorney not learned in the law, nor skilled in the matter of presenting cases in court. The clerk's minute entry, made at the time the case was called for trial, shows that the appellant was represented by two attorneys. In the bill of exceptions which is denominated a statement of facts, it is recited that one of the attorneys mentioned in the transcript appeared for the appellant. Whether the other attorney also took part in the conduct of the trial of the case does not appear. The attorney mentioned in the bill of exceptions was regularly admitted to practice law in this state on June 21, 1912. The other attorney mentioned in the transcript was admitted to practice law on June 19, 1914. The trial of the cause took place on the 31st day of May, 1916. The attorneys who appeared for the appellant, by appointment of the court having been regularly admitted to practice law prior to the time of their appointment, are presumed to have sufficient skill and learning to properly defend the accused. Fambles v. State, 97 Ga. 625, 25 S.E. 365. While in the appellant's brief there is a statement of certain facts which he claims show that he was not efficiently defended, the record is barren of any fact which would indicate that his defense was not conducted skillfully and properly.
In the case of Baker v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 62, 130 P. 820, the person appointed by the court to defend the accused had not, at the time either of the appointment or the trial, been admitted as an attorney in the state in which the prosecution took place, and consequently there was no presumption of competency. The case is therefore plainly distinguishable.
The second and third assignments of error are based upon the hypothesis that the counsel conducting the defense were incompetent. Since this charge of incompetency is not sustained by the record, as already indicated, it is unnecessary to discuss these assignments of error.
One other question is to be considered, and this is based upon the assignment that it was error to admit the testimony as to the appellant's confession. After the arrest, there was exhibited to the appellant certai...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mode
...199 Wash. 559, 92 P.2d 264; State v. Bradley, 175 Wash. 481, 27 P.2d 737; State v. Blight, 150 Wash. 475, 273 P. 751; State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757.3 The cases discussing this distinction are collected in an annotation, 74 A.L.R.2d 1390, 1406.4 Incompetent Counsel as Ground for N......
-
State v. Bradley
...more than twenty-five years, was able to conduct the defense, even of a criminal case, sufficiently skillfully and properly. State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757; v. Blight, 150 Wash. 475, 273 P. 751. See, also, State v. Schafer, supra. As to this assignment, counsel quotes extensively ......
-
State v. Winters, 31694
...influence of fear produced by threats. State v. Barker, 56 Wash. 510, 106 P. 133; State v. Wilson, 68 Wash. 464, 123 P. 795; State v. Kelch, 95 Wash. 277, 163 P. 757; State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2d 606. * * In State v. Van Brunt, 22 Wash.2d 103, 154 P.2d 606, 608, we said: 'An......