State v. Kulbe
| Decision Date | 26 January 1912 |
| Citation | 67 Wash. 21,120 P. 510 |
| Parties | STATE v. KULBE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John F. Main Judge.
E. W Kulbe and another were convicted of larceny in obtaining money under false pretenses, and they appeal. Affirmed.
Earl A McVicar and Charles A. Riddle, for appellants.
John F. Murphy, Hugh M. Caldwell, and H. B. Butler, for the State.
The grand jury of King county found an indictment against appellants, charging them with the crime of grand larceny in obtaining money under 'false and fraudulent pretenses and representations.' Having been convicted, they appeal.
Two assignments of error are urged. Under the first assignment, error is predicated upon the court's refusal to quash the indictment. This motion is based upon the ground that the appellants appeared as witnesses before the grand jury, and their names were not indorsed upon the indictment. Section 2043, Rem. & Bal. Code, provides that: 'When an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon before it is presented to the court.' Section 2099 contains a provision that a motion to set aside the indictment must be sustained, 'when the names of all the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not indorsed thereon.' It will be admitted that the language employed in these two sections would seem to make it mandatory that the names of witnesses appearing before the grand jury should be indorsed upon the indictment. The purpose of this requirement is, first, to inform the defendant who his accusers are; and, second, to inform the prosecuting attorney who his witnesses are, to the end that there may be a fair and impartial inquiry into all the facts surrounding the commission of the offense charged. In so holding, in People v. Freeland, 6 Cal. 96, the court adds: 'It will not, I apprehend, be contended that the courts should extend the rule further than necessary to secure a fair trial, and the result of such a trial should not be defeated upon a mere legal quibble, where no injustice or injury is shown to have occurred.'
The facts upon this point, in so far as they are disclosed to us are these: The indictment was based upon the testimony of the witnesses whose names were indorsed thereon. The appellants, learning of the investigation by the grand jury, sought an opportunity to appear and make a statement in their own behalf. They were permitted to do so, being advised that what they said might be used against them. The indictment was not based upon any fact disclosed by them in making their voluntary statement, and no vote was taken by the grand jury after they had so testified. It does not appear to us that, under these facts, the appellants were witnesses, within the meaning of the statute. The indorsement of their names would be of no aid to them in preparing themselves for trial, nor in ascertaining the facts upon which the prosecution relied for a conviction. It might, we think, be safely assumed that, in making their statements before the grand jury, they testified to no facts which would aid in finding a true bill against them. Their purpose in giving their testimony was rather to prevent an indictment from being returned, and to convince the grand jury of their innocence, rather than their guilt. The indorsement of their names would have given no information to them, nor apprised them of any fact not wholly within their knowledge. Hence the indorsement of their names would serve no purpose within the object of the statute, nor disclose to them any witness who could be compelled by law to testify against them. The identical question here submitted has been passed upon adversely to appellants' contention in a number of cases, upon reasoning analogous to that we have adopted under statutes almost identical with ours. People v. King, 28 Cal. 266; People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 618, 19 P. 865, 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stratford
... ... left it to the jury to say what was the inducing cause, and ... there was evidence to the effect that the complaining witness ... would not have paid for a false invoice. (People v ... Moxley, 17 Cal.App. 466, 120 P. 43; Smith v ... State, 7 Okla. Crim. 136, 122 P. 732; State v ... Kulbe, 67 Wash. 21, 120 P. 510; State v ... Elliott, 68 Wash. 603, 123 P. 1089; People v ... Whiteside, 58 Cal.App. 33, 208 P. 132; People v ... Steffner, 67 Cal.App. 1, 227 P. 690; In re ... Snyder, 17 Kan. 542; State v. Bacha, 44 Nev ... 373, 194 P. 1066; 25 C. J. 601, sec. 28.) ... ...
-
State v. Parkinson
... ... is made, and accompanied by or blended with a promise to do ... something in the future, constitutes a false pretense, ... although the promise as well as the false statement of fact ... operated as a moving cause of inducement. State v ... Kulbe, 67 Wash. 21, 120 P. 510; People v ... Winslow, 39 Mich. 505; People v. Shelters, 99 ... Mich. 333, 58 N.W. 362; State v. Vandenburg, 159 Mo ... 230, 60 S.W. 79; McDowell, v. Commonwealth, 136 Ky ... 8, 123 S.W. 313; State v. Wren, 333 Mo. 575, 62 ... S.W.2d 853; ... ...
-
State v. Bryant
...operated to induce' Mr. Albin to part with the automobile. We find the instruction proper. State v. Peterson,supra; State v. Kulbe, 67 Wash. 21, 120 P. 510 (1912). Instruction No. 14 states that 'fraudulent intent may be inferred from the retention for a long period of time, without a satis......
-
State v. Peterson
...settled that the false representations need not be the sole cause inducing the complaining witness to part with his money. State v. Kulbe, 67 Wash. 21, 120 P. 510; State v. Elliott, 68 Wash. 603, 123 P. An instruction to which appellant objects, because of the word 'trick' being used, is su......