State v. Rappaport

• Citation: 241 P. 4,136 Wash. 603
• Decision Date: 30 November 1925
• Docket Number: 19454.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: STATE v. RAPPAPORT et al.

241 P. 4

136 Wash. 603

STATE v. RAPPAPORT et al.

No. 19454.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 30, 1925

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Ronald, Judge.

Paul R Rappaport and another were convicted of being jointists, and the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Adam Beeler, of Seattle (T. M. Royce, of Seattle, of counsel), for appellant.

Ewing D. Colvin and Eugene Meacham, both of Seattle, for the State.

MITCHELL J.

The appellant Paul R. Rappaport and his wife were jointly indicted and convicted of the crime of being jointists. From a judgment and sentence imposed on him he has appealed.

There was evidence presented at the trial which showed that the appellant and his wife were the owners of and operated a delicatessen grocery store and restaurant, called the American Delicatessen, in a residence district in Seattle. Both were occupied in the store. Approximately nine sales of intoxicating liquor were shown to have been made by the appellant and delivered by him to the purchasers at the store. One witness testified that he purchased intoxicating liquor at the store from a brother of appellant's wife in her presence. One witness testified that on looking up the telephone number of the American Delicatessen he ordered a quart of whisky from that place that a woman answered the telephone; and that delivery was made at his hotel room by the brother of the appellant's wife. Still another witness testified that at the store he purchased from appellant a bottle of whisky and at the same time purchased two bottles of ginger ale and some paper cups from appellant's wife, and that all of the articles purchased from both were put in one paper sack by appellant at the suggestion of his wife. Witnesses testified that the general reputation of the place was that it was a place where liquor was sold. Appellant testified, under examination of his own counsel (not his present counsel), that on a previous occasion he had been convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell.

The first assignment is that the court erred in instructing the jury:

'Under the law of this state, any person who opens up conducts or maintains, or who aids or assists another to open up, conduct, or to maintain, any place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, is defined to be 'jointist."

The objection urged refers to the use of the words 'aids or assists.' The court gave no definition of those words--none was requested--and certainly in the ordinary sense the appellant and his wife were aiding one another under the theory of the state and the evidence produced on its behalf. But above this consideration of the ordinary use of the words, as applied to this case, the instruction must be considered in connection with other...