State v. Mott
| Decision Date | 07 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40057,40057 |
| Citation | 74 Wn.2d 804,447 P.2d 85 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Donald Clarence MOTT, Appellant. |
Fredrickson, Maxey, Bell & Allison, Otto M. Allison, Jr., Spokane, for appellant.
George A. Kain, Pros. Atty., Lee A. Larson, Deputy Pros. Atty., Spokane, for respondent.
The appellant was found guilty in superior court of the crime of grand larceny by receiving stolen goods and was acquitted on a count of burglary.
The first contention of the appellant is that there was no evidence of guilty knowledge to sustain the verdict and that for this reason the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial. His argument in support of this contention, as we understand it, is that, since the jury acquitted him on the burglary charge, it did not believe those witnesses who testified that he knew about and participated in the theft of the wire. This is not an inevitable conclusion from the fact of acquittal on the burglary charge. The jury may well have found the evidence of a breaking insufficient and still found that the theft occurred and that the defendant participated in it or at least knew of it. Their verdict indicates this to be the fact. We find no merit in this contention of the appellant.
The appellant assigns error to the giving of an instruction defining larceny. No exception was taken when this instruction was given, and it became the law of the case and cannot be reviewed for the first time on appeal. State v. Stewart, 73 Wash.Dec.2d 706, 440 P.2d 815 (1968); State v. Queen, 73 Wash.Dec.2d 711, 440 P.2d 461 (1968).
The appellant next advances his chief contention on appeal, that the trial court erred in permitting the state to present evidence that he had participated in previous thefts of telephone wire from the same owner. According to this evidence, the appellant had not only been a party to thefts of wire from the building where the wire allegedly taken on the date of the alleged crime was stored, but in addition had in the past cut wire down from the poles and carried it away from a site where the telephone company was conducting a dismantling project. The wire was identified as a pure copper wire of particular and specified dimensions, which was rolled and tied in a particular fashion before it was stored by the company. The evidence also showed that on a number of previous occasions, the appellant had sold the wire which was stolen to the Pacific Hide and Fur Company in Spokane.
As the appellant points out, to support a conviction of the crime of receiving stolen goods, the state must have shown that he knew the goods were stolen. It is his position that the only evidence tending to show guilty knowledge on his part was this evidence of his participation in prior thefts (since he assumes that the jury rejected the testimony that he actually participated in the theft of the wire he was alleged to have received). He contends that it was inadmissible.
The appellant concedes that evidence of other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Todd
...murder of Harry Lee Wren, Jr. Relevant evidence is not inadmissible simply because it tends to prove another offense. State v. Mott, 74 Wash.2d 804, 447 P.2d 85 (1968). The other separate contention of Wood is that the trial court committed error in permitting the prosecution to question hi......
-
State v. Bresolin
...is true, but whether the defendant said it. The statement was admissible from the standpoint of the hearsay objection. State v. Mott, 74 Wash.2d 804, 447 P.2d 85 (1968); Moen v. Chestnut, 9 Wash.2d 93, 113 P.2d 1030 (1941); R. Meisenholder, 5 Wash.Prac. § 381 (1965, SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS T......
-
State v. Riconosciuto
...such as where such evidence shows motive, intent, absence of accident or mistake, common scheme or plan, or identity. State v. Mott, 74 Wash.2d 804, 447 P.2d 85 (1968); State v. Dinges, 48 Wash.2d 152, 292 P.2d 361 (1956). Illustrative of this principle is United States v. Kaufman, 453 F.2d......
-
State v. Jamison
...disclosed defendant's prior criminal conduct when it was not in issue for any of the regularly accepted reasons. State v. Mott, 74 Wash.2d 804, 447 P.2d 85 (1968). Notwithstanding, we hold there was no prejudicial error. The record is clear that defendant confessed to commission of the robb......