State v. Pettett

• Decision Date: 07 January 1927
• Docket Number: 19975.
• Citation: 141 Wash. 668,252 P. 104
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. PETTETT.

252 P. 104

141 Wash. 668

STATE v. PETTETT.

No. 19975.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 7, 1927

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Huneke, Judge.

E. S Pettett was charged with threatening to expose and impute disgrace to another with intent to extort money. Demurrer to the information was sustained, and the State appeals. Affirmed.

Chas H. Leavy and Louis F. Bunge, both of Spokane, for the state.

F. M O'Leary and W. W. Zent, both of Spokane, for respondent.

TOLMAN C.J.

Respondent was informed against under Rem. Comp. Stat. § 2613, which provides:

'Every person who, with intent thereby to extort or gain any money or other property or to compel or induce another to make, subscribe, execute, alter or destroy any valuable security or instrument or writing affecting or intending to affect any cause of action or defense, or any property, or to influence the action of any public officer, or to do or abet or procure any illegal or wrongful act, shall threaten directly or indirectly----

* * *

* * *

'(4) To expose or impute to any person any deformity or disgrace; * * *

'Shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than five years or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment,'

--the charging part of the information being:

'That the said defendant, E. S. Pettett, in Spokane county, state of Washington, on or about the 8th day of March, 1926, then and there being, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent thereby to extort and gain money and other property, threaten to directly expose and impute to D. E. Brendlinger a disgrace.'

To this information a demurrer was interposed, which was sustained by the trial court. A judgment of dismissal followed, from which the state appeals.

The attitude of the state seems to be that the gravamen of the offense is the attempt to extort money or other property and that therefore the offense is defined by the statute and the information in the language of the statute is sufficient citing State v. Randall, 107 Wash. 695, 182 P. 575, and State v. Chamberlain, 132 Wash. 520, 232 P. 337.

The gist of the first case cited is:

'It is undoubtedly the rule in this jurisdiction that it is sufficient, in charging a crime, to follow the language of the statute, where such crime is there defined and the language used is sufficient to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation, so that he may be able to avail himself of his acquittal or conviction as a protection against further prosecutions for the same offense.'

And the latter part of the language quoted clearly differentiates it from the case now under consideration.

The Chamberlain Case involved the charge of practicing as an attorney and counselor at law without having been admitted to practice. The court there said:

'From the provisions of section 4, c. 126 [Laws 1921], supra, it is manifest that practicing law need not be confined to a single act prohibited as such, but may be a continuing practice extending over a period of time. Hence, as was charged in the information, respondent is alleged to have practiced law between the first day of July, 1922, and the 28th day of June, 1923; and it is also charged that, within that time, he willfully and unlawfully represented himself to be, and practiced as an attorney and counsellor at law, and did work of a legal nature for compensation. The information exactly follows the language of the statute. To do so, with some exceptions because of the nature of the offense, follows our and the general rule in code states.

...