State v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 15 July 1899 |
| Citation | 21 Wash. 355,58 P. 215 |
| Parties | STATE v. MORGAN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Walla Walla county; Thomas H. Brents Judge.
James Percy Morgan was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.
Edgar Lemman, for appellant.
F. B Sharpstein and C. M. Rader, for the State.
Appellant and two others, Elworth and Sims, were jointly charged with the crime of burglary, committed in Walla Walla on March 27 1898. The information charged the facts as follows: 'The said John Elworth, James H. Sims, and James Percy Morgan, on the 27th day of March, 1898, in the county of Walla Walla aforesaid, then and there being, in the nighttime of said day, a certain house, then and there * * * the dwelling house of said Mrs. N.E. Koontz, did willfully, unlawfully feloniously, and burglariously break and enter, with intent then and there the personal goods and property * * * willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away,' etc. The appellant had a separate trial. There was testimony tending to show that appellant came to Walla Walla in company with the other two charged in the indictment, and that he and Sims occupied a room together at a lodging house, and that some time after the commission of the burglary Sims was at appellant's room. The defendant also was found to have burglar's tools in his possession. Sims was duly tried and convicted of the burglary committed. There was no testimony tending to show that appellant was present when the crime was committed. The most that counsel for the state urge is that appellant was properly charged as a principal, under section 6782, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., where the distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal and between principals in the first and second degrees is abolished, and that all persons concerned in the commission of the offense, whether they directly counseled the act constituting the offense, or counseled, aided, and abetted its commission, though not present, shall be indicted, tried, and punished as principals. The superior court instructed the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
... ... not aid in deciding the issues. Instruction No. 2 was not ... applicable to offense charged. Instruction No. 3 was ... erroneous because not supported by the charge; Johnston ... vs. State, 19 Wash. 464, 53 P. 707; State vs ... Morgan, 21 Wash. 355; Oerter vs. State, (Nebr.) ... 77 N.W. 367; 30 C. J. 604; McGinnis vs. State, 16 ... Wyo. 72; instructions 8, 9 and 10 are erroneous in that no ... definition of conspiracy is given; instruction number 11 is ... correct in principle, but without application to the charge; ... ...
-
State v. Goesser
...distinguished. State v. Cooper, 26 Wash.2d 405, 174 P.2d 545, 549; State v. Dickey, 181 Wash. 249, 42 P.2d 790, 791; State v. Morgan, 21 Wash. 355, 361, 58 P. 215, 216, decided on the authority of State v. Gifford, supra. We are here dealing with a particular and unusual statute, a statute ......
-
State v. Schuman
...while the information charged him as a principal. In support of this claim appellant cites State v. Gifford, supra, State v. Morgan, 21 Wash. 355, 58 P. 215, and of Everett v. Simmons, 150 P. 414. Though technically incorrect, this instruction in view of the evidence was not prejudicial. If......
-
State v. Cooper
...790, 791, we further commented upon the Gifford Case, saying 'The cases of State v. Gifford, 19 Wash. 464, 53 P. 709, and State v. Morgan, 21 Wash. 355, 58 P. 215, cited by appellant) are not in point, because in each of those cases there was no attempt to prove that the accused was guilty ......