State v. Kristofferson, 35807
| Decision Date | 08 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35807,35807 |
| Citation | 58 Wn.2d 317,362 P.2d 596 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Carl A. KRISTOFFERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., August F. Hahn, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for appellant.
Alva C. Long, Auburn, for respondent.
July 13, 1959, Carl A. Kristofferson, a resident of the state of Washington, was convicted of a traffic violation. As part of the penalty imposed, his Washington driver's license was suspended for a period of sixty days, 'and thereafter until reinstated.'
July 28, 1959, Kristofferson moved to California and established legal domicile. After residing in California for more than ninety days, and not having driven a motor vehicle in either Washington or California during that period of time, Kristofferson applied for and obtained a California motor vehicle operator's license.
April 2, 1960, Kristofferson returned to Washington for a short visit. While driving in King county, he was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while his operator's license was suspended, in violation of the provisions of RCW 46.20.350. Although it was conceded at the trial that Kristofferson was not a resident of the state of Washington, and that he had in his possession a valid operator's license issued by his home state, as provided by RCW 46.20.080, he was convicted in justice court of violation of RCW 46.20.350.
He appealed to the superior court for King county. The superior court ordered the case dismissed because Kristofferson was a bona fide resident of California and, by virtue of his valid motor vehicle operator's license issued by the state of his residence, he could lawfully operate a motor vehicle in this state under the provisions of RCW 46.20.080. The state has appealed.
The appellant's four assignments of error raise but one question: Did the trial court correctly construe the statutes here involved?
RCW 46.20.350 provides in part:
'A person whose vehicle operator's license has been suspended, revoked, or canceled, and who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while such license is suspended * * * shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor * * *'
RCW 46.20.080 provides in part:
'A nonresident over the age of sixteen years who has been duly licensed as an operator under a law requiring the licensing of operators in his home state or country and who has in his immediate possession a valid vehicle operator's license issued to him in his home state or country shall be permitted without examination or a vehicle operator's license of this state to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state. * * *'
RCW 46.04.580 provides:
"Suspend,' in all its forms, means invalidation for any period less than one calendar year and thereafter until reinstatement.'
Appellant contends that, inasmuch as the respondent has not had his Washington license reinstated, his privilege to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state remains suspended, and that the permission granted to him as a nonresident driver under RCW 46.20.080 must yield to the express prohibition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walls
...and then applied. Beach v. Board of Adjustment of Snohomish County, 73 Wash.2d 343, 438 P.2d 617 (1968); State v. Kristofferson, 58 Wash.2d 317, 362 P.2d 596 (1961); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 369 RCW 19.48.110 makes it a gross misdemeanor to defraud an innkeeper. In enacting it, I do not think t......
-
State v. French
...had a valid out-of-state license at the time he was stopped. State v. Reeder, 188 Neb. 121, 195 N.W.2d 509 (1972); State v. Kristofferson, 58 Wash.2d 317, 362 P.2d 596 (1961); see Bryant v. State, 294 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Cr.App.1956); State v. Markley, 34 Wash.2d 766, 210 P.2d 139 Defendant's n......
-
State v. Churchill
...had a valid out-of-state license at the time he was stopped. State v. Reeder, 188 Neb. 121, 195 N.W.2d 509 (1972); State v. Kristofferson, 58 Wash.2d 317, 362 P.2d 596 (1961); See Bryant v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 294 S.W.2d 819 (1956); State v. Markley, 34 Wash.2d 766, 210 P.2d 139 378 A......
-
State v. Reeder
...is in accord with the construction placed upon similar statutes by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. State v. Kristofferson, 58 Wash.2d 317, 362 P.2d 596. It is also impliedly supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Fred, 28......