State v. Reid, 35760
| Decision Date | 01 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 35760,35760 |
| Citation | 74 Wn.2d 250,444 P.2d 155 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. William James REID, Appellant. |
Richard M. Ishikawa, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Patricia G. Harber, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.
*
Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of the crime of second degree burglary. From the judgment and sentence entered therein, 1 he has appealed and assigns as error the insufficiency of the information by which he was charged and the trial court's giving instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The charging part of the information provided as follows:
He, the said WILLIAM JAMES REID, in the County of King, State of Washington, on or about the 22nd day of March, 1960, with intent to commit a crime therein, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did break and enter the premises located at 601 Columbia, said premises being occupied by the Yale Grocery, and being premises wherein property was then and there kept for sale, use and or deposit; and said premises not then and there owned nor lawfully occupied by said defendant.
That portion of instruction No. 1 about which defendant complains reads as follows:
He, the said WILLIAM JAMES REID, in the County of King, State of Washington, on or about the 22nd day of March, 1960, with intent to commit a crime therein, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did break and enter the premises located at 601 Columbia, said premises being occupied by the Yale Grocery, and being premises wherein property was then and there kept for sale, use and or deposit; and said premises not then and there owned nor lawfully occupied by said defendant.
That portion of instruction No. 2 about which defendant complains reads as follows:
(2) That said breaking and entering of said building was with the intent to commit a crime therein;
Defendant contends that the defect in the information and instructions Nos. 1 and 2 is in the use of the words 'with intent to commit a crime therein.' He argues that by not identifying the crime he intended to commit when he allegedly broke and entered, results in the information and instructions being too indefinite to apprise him of the accusation against him.
Defendant's trial counsel (different counsel than on appeal) neither before nor during the trial moved for a more definite statement, nor was the question of the insufficiency of the information raised on defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the state's case. Neither was an exception taken to the giving of instructions Nos. 1 or 2.
Having failed to move for a more definite statement, defendant cannot now on appeal for the first time complain that he was not sufficiently advised of the nature of the charge upon which he was tried. State v. Fairfax, 42 Wash.2d 777, 258 P.2d 1212 (1953). Likewise, by his failure to except to the giving of instructions Nos. 1 and 2, they became the law of the case. State v. Queen, 73 Wash.Dec.2d 711, 440 P.2d 461 (1968).
The defendant assigns error to the court's giving instruction No. 3. That portion of the instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jussila
...was well accepted throughout the state. See , e.g. , State v. Hames , 74 Wash.2d 721, 725, 446 P.2d 344 (1968) ; State v. Reid , 74 Wash.2d 250, 252, 444 P.2d 155 (1968) ; State v. Queen , 73 Wash.2d 706, 707, 440 P.2d 461 (1968) ; State v. Leohner , 69 Wash.2d 131, 134, 417 P.2d 368 (1966)......
-
State v. Taplin
...Supreme Court has held that the instruction does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove his innocence, State v. Reid, 74 Wash.2d 250, 444 P.2d 155 (1968); State v. Durning, 71 Wash.2d 675, 430 P.2d 546 (1967). The quoted language refers to the absence of satisfactory eviden......
-
State v. Canaday
...of evidence. Fisher v. Jackson, 120 Wash. 107, 206 P. 929 (1922); State v. Murley, 35 Wash.2d 233, 212 P.2d 801 (1949); State v. Reid, 74 Wash.2d 250, 444 P.2d 155 (1968). We feel impelled, however, to consider the assignment of error despite the lack of objection or want of timely motion t......
-
State v. Livengood
...to do so. RCW 9.19.030 has been repeatedly upheld in the past. State v. Galen, 5 Wash.App. 353, 487 P.2d 273 (1971); State v. Reid, 74 Wash.2d 250, 444 P.2d 155 (1968); State v. Durning, 71 Wash.2d 675, 430 P.2d 546 (1967); State v. Anderson, 5 Wash. 350, 31 P. 969 (1892). However, the stat......