State v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 21 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 24829. |
| Citation | 175 Wash. 656,27 P.2d 1065 |
| Parties | STATE v. MORRISON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Malcolm Douglas, Judge.
E. R Morrison was convicted of the crime of asking and receiving a bribe, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph H. Griffin and Geo. E. Flood, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Robert M. Burgunder and Cordelia M. Thiel, both of Seattle, for the State.
By indictment of the grand jury the defendant(appellant here) was charged in two counts with the crime of asking and receiving a bribe.Count 1 charged that the defendant, then a deputy county assessor, on or about March 23, 1931, corruptly solicited and received $100 as a gratuity based upon an agreement that his official conduct would be influenced thereby.Count 2 charges a similar offense committed on or about March 15, 1932, by which he received a lesser amount.A trial to a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second count.From the judgment and sentence on the verdict the defendant has appealed.
In this courtthe appellant seems to rely chiefly upon the assignment of error which raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury.We have studied the evidence with considerable care and find that every necessary element of the crime charged was supported by direct evidence.It is true that much of this evidence was in the form of testimony from the person who admitted that he paid the bribe money, but there was much of corroboration in the surrounding circumstances and in testimony given by others.Had the testimony of the bribe giver been uncorroborated, still it would be sufficient to take the case to the jury.State v. Wappenstein,67 Wash. 502, 121 P. 989.
It is clearly held also in the case just cited that the bribe giver is not an accomplice, but is guilty of a distinct and separate offense.Hence, under the authority of that case there was no error in the refusal to give the cautionary instruction which was here requested.
But returning to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence it seems to be urged that because the understanding was reached by the use of indirect terms the jury was left to speculate upon the vital point.We do not think so.Such things are usually approached indirectly and few are bold enough to use direct terms to indicate their intention or desire.Here, the subject of the assessment of the particular property was under consideration.The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Byrnes
...in this case the weight of the evidence was for the jury, and the court committed no error in submitting the case. [16 C. J. S. 674; State v. Morrison, supra.] Rarely, if ever, does an appellate court in this State aside judgments because of the weight of the evidence. [State v. Decker, 326......
-
State v. Beck
...to him is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Ingels, 1940, 4 Wash.2d 676, 104 P.2d 944; State v. Morrison, 1933, 175 Wash. 656, 27 P.2d 1065. This is likewise the rule in the Federal courts. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 395, 79 S.Ct. 1237......
-
State v. Haas
...12 A. 405; Cramer v. State, 145 Neb. 88, 15 N.W.2d 323; Padgett v. State, 64 Fla. 389, 59 So. 946, Ann.Cas.1914B, 897; State v. Morrison, 175 Wash. 656, 27 P.2d 1065; State v. Clark, 21 Wash.2d 774, 153 P.2d 297; v. Cala (Ohio App.), supra. There exists no need for an extensive synopsis of ......
-
State v. Byrnes
...raised a question of fact for the jury, which they resolved against the appellant. It was not necessary to have corroboration. State v. Morrison, 27 Pac. (2d) 1065; 11 C.J.S., p. 874, Sec. 17. (7) The indictment was sufficient in form and substance. State v. Sullivan, 110 Mo. App. 75, 84 S.......