State v. Kichinko

• Decision Date: 16 November 1922
• Docket Number: 17058.
• Citation: State v. Kichinko, 122 Wash. 251, 210 P. 364 (Wash. 1922)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. KICHINKO.

210 P. 364

122 Wash. 251

STATE v. KICHINKO.

No. 17058.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

November 16, 1922

Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; Augustus Brawley, Judge.

Paul Kichinko was convicted of being a jointist, and appeals. Affirmed.

Shranger & Henderson, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

W. L Brickey and W. H. Hodge, both of Mt. Vernon, for the State.

MITCHELL J.

The appellant was informed against, tried, and convicted of the crime of being a jointist, in that at the town of Alger Skagit county, Wash., 'between the dates of the 18th day of August, 1920, and the 17th day of September, 1920, the said defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously open up, conduct, and maintain a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor at a pool room, its appurtenances and appendants.'

The first assignment of error is that the statute of this state upon which the prosecution is founded has been superseded by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305) passed thereunder. By a number of decisions commencing with State v. Turner, 115 Wash 170, 196 P. 638, we have uniformly held contrary to appellant's contention. The assignment is without merit.

By the second assignment it is claimed the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the state to show, over the objections of the appellant, that he had been convicted before a justice of the peace on August 19, 1920, of the crime of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. If there was error in admitting the testimony at the time it was received, of which there is no necessity for decision here, it was harmless and unavailing at the close of all the evidence before the jury or for the purpose of this appeal because the appellant upon taking the witness stand in his own behalf, under the directions of his own counsel, testified to the same conviction before the justice of the peace, and that he had paid the fine imposed. State v. Baker, 67 Wash. 595, 122 P. 335; 4 C.J. Appeal and Error, p. 938.

The only other assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. The evidence on behalf of the state is not without substantial dispute, but there was sufficient to satisfy the jury of substantially the following facts, among others:

(1) For some months the appellant conducted a pool room and soft drink store in a building occupied by him at Alger, under a lease of the premises, his wife and children living in Seattle.

(2) A resident of Alger testified as follows:

'Q. Have you observed drunkenness in and about his premises? A. I have seen lots of it. Q. You observed this drunkenness there between the 18th day of August and the 17th day of September, 1920? A. Yes. Q. Is it customary for drunks to hang about his place? A. I don't know whether it is customary or not. I notice a few hanging around there occasionally.'

(3) Appellant requested of a neighbor permission to leave with him or place on his premises certain material the witness believed to be mash, and on an occasion within the dates mentioned in the information a boy while playing with companions observed a quantity of raisins, figs, and other material in a small keg in a chicken coop on the neighbor's premises about 100 feet from appellant's place of business.

(4) Promptly after his conviction on August 19, 1920, of manufacturing intoxicating liquor appellant requested and had an interview with certain public officers of the county, including the sheriff, in which he suggested that he was willing to pay for protection in the business of handling intoxicating liquor.

(5) Having been repulsed by the public officers, appellant later made the statement in the sheriff's office on or about September 10, 1920, 'that he was running a joint at Alger; they could not put him out of business; he was protected by several sheriffs; and he didn't give a damn for any sheriff for all had their price.'

(6) At the time of the arrest of the appellant on...