State v. McDaniels
| Decision Date | 11 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 30289. |
| Citation | 30 Wn.2d 76,190 P.2d 705 |
| Parties | STATE v. McDANIELS. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2
William A. McDaniels was convicted of homicide by means of motor vehicle, and the State appeals from an order granting defendant's motion in arrest of judgment and dismissing the action, and granting defendant's alternative motion for new trial.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Howard M. Findley, Judge.
Lloyd Shorett, Pros. Atty., John L. Vogel and James D. McCutcheon Jr., all of Seattle, for appellant.
Warner Pierce & Peden and Herbert Danz, all of Seattle, for respondent.
An information filed by the prosecuting attorney for King county charged the defendant with the commission of the crime of negligent homicide by means of a motor vehicle. Trial Before a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order granting defendant's motion in arrest of judgment and dismissing the action, on the ground that there was no evidence or proof of negligence on the part of defendant which was the proximate cause of the decedent's death, and on the further ground that the proof showed that the deceased came to her death solely and proximately as a result of her own negligence. In the same order, the court granted defendant's alternative motion for new trial, upon the condition that the ruling on that motion should not become effective unless and until the order granting the motion in arrest of judgment was reversed on appeal. The state has appealed from the entire order made and entered by the trial court.
On the evening of December 24, 1946, Mrs. Ruth A. Sutton was struck and killed by a 1937 Chevrolet automobile driven by William A. McDaniels, the respondent herein. The tragic event took place on the outside northerly lane of traffic of Bothell highway, within or just a few feet west of the intersection of that highway and Sixty-first avenue northeast. These two streets at the place of their intersection are outside and some distance north of the city limits of Seattle.
In that Vicinity, Bothell highway, extending in an easterly-westerly direction, is a primary state highway the traveled portion of which is approximately sixty feet wide and is paved with concrete to a width of forty feet. The pavement is divided by a center line, providing two lanes for eastbound traffic and two for west-bound. On each side of the paved portion of the road is a shoulder about ten feet wide. The speed limit upon the highway in that locality was fifty miles an hour.
Sixty-first avenue northeast, which is about sixty feet in width, enters Bothell highway from the northeast, at an angle of approximately forty-five degrees, but does not extend beyond the southerly line of the highway. Its central portion of about twenty feet is surfaced with 'blacktop.' At the time here in question, there was no traffic light nor any cross-walk at this intersection.
Bordering the northerly edge of the paved portion of Bothell highway and for a distance of approximately one hundred seventy-five feet west of the center of the intersection, the highway is surfaced with blacktop, which extends from the concrete pavement to and for a short distance beyond the northerly right of way line. At the northwest corner of the intersection and fronting the blacktop surface is a gasoline station, and about thirty feet further west is a tavern. Other business houses are situated along the northerly side of the highway, east of the intersection.
On the opposite, or south, side of the intersection, a graveled road extends from the highway in a southeasterly direction. Near the junction of this road with the highway is a guardrail which extends eastwardly along the outer margin of the south shoulder, from a point approximately due south of the center line of Sixty-first avenue northeast extended across the highway.
A person crossing the highway at this intersection has an unobstructed view in an easterly direction for a distance of six hundred to eight hundred feet.
During the afternoon and early evening of December 24, 1946, Mr. Edward F. Sutton and his wife, Ruth, now deceased, were doing some Christmas shopping in the downtown business section of Seattle. Their home was located on the westerly side of Sixty-first avenue northeast, about a half-mile north of Bothell highway. Having finished their shopping, they proceeded to the bus station where they boarded a Bothell bus at 8:25 p. m. At about 8:45 p. m. they arrived at what is known as Lynwood stop, which is at the intersection of Bothell highway and Sixty-first avenue northeast. The bus stopped at the customary place on the south side of the highway, astraddle the gravel road and at a point near the westerly end of the guardrail described above. The Suttons alighted and waited until the bus had proceeded on its way. They were dressed in dark clothing and each had a shopping bag filled with merchandise, most of which consisted of wooden toys, doll-house furniture, and other playings for 'the little girl.' In one of the bags was also a bottle of whiskey, but the evidence is undisputed that neither of the Suttons had consumed any intoxicating liquor that afternoon or evening. The night was dark and dry.
Before starting across the highway they waited long enough to permit several automobiles going east to pass them, and then proceeded forward toward the northwest corner of the Sixty-first avenue intersection. As marked by Mr. Sutton upon a map appearing as an exhibit in the case, the course which they followed was in a slightly northwesterly direction.
Mr. Sutton's testimony relative to the occurrence was as follows:
The place upon the highway where the Suttons were struck as marked on the map by Mr. Sutton, was about five or seven feet south of the northerly edge of the pavement, in the outside lane of west-bound traffic, and about the same distance west of the westerly line of Sixty-first avenue northeast extended across the intersection.
Mrs. Sutton died within a few seconds after being struck by the automobile driven by the respondent. Her body was found lying partly on the outside northerly lane of traffic, a distance of one hundred sixty feet or more from the intersection, with her feet extending in a northerly direction onto the shoulder of the road. Respondent's automobile came to a stop on the north shoulder of the highway two hundred eighty-four feet west of the body, or four hundred forty-four feet west of the intersection.
Mr. Chet T. Peterson, an officer of the Washington state patrol, arrived at the scene of the accident at 8:58 p. m., about fifteen minutes after its occurrence. He made a thorough investigation of the circumstances, talked to the respondent and his companion, also to Mr. Sutton, examined the conditions upon the highway, took certain measurements with a steel tape, and had a photographer take pictures of the automobile and of the highway in that vicinity.
Because of the importance of Mr. Peterson's testimony and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes
...Wash.2d 177, 181, 606 P.2d 1228 (1980).65 RAP 2.4(a).66 State v. Snider, 70 Wash.2d 326, 327, 422 P.2d 816 (1967); State v. McDaniels, 30 Wash.2d 76, 88, 190 P.2d 705 (1948).67 Snider, 70 Wash.2d at 327, 422 P.2d 816; State v. Hardy, 37 Wash.App. 463, 469, 681 P.2d 852 (1984).68 Annot., Ina......
-
State v. Judge
...of Wright. It is well established that contributory negligence is not a defense to negligent homicide. E.g., State v. McDaniels, 30 Wash.2d 76, 89, 190 P.2d 705 (1948); State v. Carlsten, 17 Wash.2d 573, 576-77, 136 P.2d 183 (1943); State v. Nerison, 28 Wash.App. 659, 661 n. 1, 625 P.2d 735......
-
State v. Coryell
...the jury in weighing the evidence, determining witness credibility, and deciding disputed questions of fact. State v. McDaniels , 30 Wash.2d 76, 88, 190 P.2d 705 (1948), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Partridge , 47 Wash.2d 640, 289 P.2d 702 (1955). The jury, not the trial j......
-
Thomas v. State
...Fla., 87 So.2d 584, 585; Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 128 A.2d 634, 638; Wallen v. State, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 170, 174; State v. McDaniels, 30 Wash.2d 76, 190 P.2d 705, 713, overruled in other respects in State v. Partridge, 47 Wash.2d 640, 289 P.2d 702, 706. Since there was evidence in the re......