State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 10 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37329,37329 |
| Citation | 397 P.2d 417,65 Wn.2d 373 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Vernon MITCHELL, Appellant. |
Kadish & Kane, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., William L. Kinzel, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
At about 3 a.m., on March 16, 1963, in the Birdland dance club in Seattle, Washington, Marilyn Van Ausdell was wounded in the abdomen with a small caliber pistol. Her former boy friend, defendant Vernon Mitchell, was accused of the shooting. He was charged, tried, and convicted of the crime of assault in the first degree. He appeals.
The sole issue raised upon the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. In this respect defendant contends the proof fails to establish the essential element of an intent to kill, because (a) there is no evidence, apart from the act of shooting, from which the jury could infer the intent to kill, and (b) the evidence demonstrates that defendant was, at the time of the shooting, too intoxicated to form the requisite intent.
We have carefully reviewed the statements of facts and must disagree with defendant.
The specific intent to kill in first degree assault cases is to be gathered from all of the circumstances of the case, of which the infliction of the wound is but one. State v. Davis, 72 Wash. 261, 130 P. 95 (1913). In the instant case, the evidence indicates, together with other circumstances, that the defendant and the complaining witness had, shortly before the incident at Birdland, terminated a meretricious relationship...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tyler
... ... The intention with which an act is done, of course, may be inferred from the act and circumstances surrounding it. State v. Shelton, 71 Wash.2d 838, 431 P.2d 201 (1967); State v. Willis, 67 Wash.2d 681, 409 P.2d 669 (1966); State v. Mitchell, 65 Wash.2d 373, 397 P.2d 417 (1964). In its instruction, the court properly reduced each count to its component elements and told the jury that each element had to be established to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and that, if the jury entertained a reasonable doubt ... ...
-
State v. Woo Won Choi
... ... RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). Evidence of intent to kill is to be gathered from all of the circumstances of the case, including not only the manner and act of inflicting the wound, but also the nature of the prior relationship and any previous threats. See State v. Mitchell, 65 Wash.2d 373, 374, 397 P.2d 417 (1964). A person acts with knowledge when he is aware of or has information which would reasonably lead him to be aware of facts defining an offense. RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b) ... Viewing this evidence most favorably to the State, there was ... ...
-
State v. Halls
...the manner and act of inflicting the wound, the nature of the prior relationship, and any previous threats. State v. Mitchell, 65 Wn.2d 373, 374, 397 P.2d 417 (1964). The record shows Ms. Harshman and Mr. Halls were arguing. Mr. Halls grabbed her by the throat and then threw her on the bed.......
-
State v. Cloud
...shot at the occupied area of the truck, striking the driver side door. Accordingly, Ferreira is inapplicable. Cloud also relies on State v. Mitchell, [5] and State v. Choi.[6] However, Mitchell and Choi have been rejected by State v. Anderson. 72 Wn.App. 453, 458-59, 864 P.2d 1001 (1994). I......