State v. Reiff
| Decision Date | 12 June 1896 |
| Parties | STATE v. REIFF. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.
R. G Reiff was convicted of obtaining property under false pretenses, and appeals. Affirmed.
John B. Wright and Wm. Parmerlee, for appellant.
A. W Hastie and W. W. Wilshire, for the State.
On September 3, 1895, an information was filed in the superior court of King county, charging the appellant, under 2 Hill's Pen. Code, § 53, with the crime of larceny of "a lady's beaver shoulder cape" of the value of $50, by fraudulently and falsely impersonating another. Upon his plea of not guilty the cause proceeded to trial, and, the prosecution having introduced its evidence and rested, the appellant's counsel moved the court that the prosecution be dismissed for insufficiency of the state's evidence. This motion was sustained by the court, and the jury excused and thereupon the court made an order directing that appellant be held to answer to the charge of obtaining property under false pretenses, and directing that an information should be filed accordingly. Thereafter an information was filed in said court, charging appellant under 2 Hill's Pen. Code, § 234, with the crime of obtaining said property under false pretenses. Being arraigned upon said last-mentioned information, appellant entered his plea of "Not guilty," coupled with a plea of former acquittal, and proceeded to trial. The evidence for the state having been submitted, the defendant, in support of his plea, offered in evidence the record of the former proceeding on the information charging him with larceny by false personation. The court having sustained the objection of the state to the introduction of this evidence, and the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, appellant's motion for a new trial was denied, and the court proceeded to pronounce judgment and sentence, from which the cause has been appealed to this court.
It appears that the motion of appellant's counsel, and the decision of the court in discharging appellant upon the charge of "false personation," were based upon the fact in evidence that the property in question was not held by the prosecuting witness for the purpose or with the intention of being delivered by him to the person so falsely personated; and it was insisted by appellant's counsel that therein the evidence was insufficient to warrant the case going to a jury upon the charge then pending against appellant. It is not claimed in this court that a conviction of the appellant upon that charge could have been sustained nor is it contended that the court committed any error in withdrawing that case from the jury, and, independent of these considerations, we think that the ruling of the court in that regard was right. Williams v. State, 49 Ind. 369. It is insisted, however, that the transaction set out in the information upon which the appellant has been convicted is the same as that set out in the information charging him with false personation, and that it is, therefore, the same offense within the meaning of Const. art. 1, § 9, which provides that "no person shall be *** twice put in jeopardy for the same offense." We think this contention cannot be sustained. Section 1315 of 2 Hill's Pen. Code is as follows: "When it appears, at any time before verdict or judgment, that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the defendant shall not be discharged if there appear to be good cause to detain him in custody; but the court must recognize him to answer the offense shown, and if necessary, recognize the witnesses to appear and testify." As already observed, the evidence upon the trial of the first information was not appropriate to the charge of false personation, and, the variance having become apparent to the court prior to verdict therein, the statute fully authorized the order which was then made directing a new information to be filed. It is not contended here that this statute (section 1315, supra) is in conflict with the constitution, and we think that it covers the case. There is a distinction between twice placing a person in jeopardy "for the same offense" and a second prosecution of one for a separate and distinct offense based upon a different statute, the penalty prescribed for the violation of which is different from that imposed by the statute under which the first information was laid. A mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Freeman
...at 777,888 P.2d 155; Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304,52 S.Ct. 180 (establishing "same evidence" or "same elements" test); State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 667, 45 P. 318 (1896) (double jeopardy violated when "`the evidence required to support a conviction [of one crime] would have been sufficient......
-
In re Orange
...test, the "same evidence" test, and the Blockburger test.4 Washington courts first applied the "same elements" test in State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 45 P. 318 (1896). There, the court held that successive prosecutions for larceny by means of false impersonation and for obtaining goods under......
-
State v. Hatt
...score. 143 Wash. App. at 886, 181 P.3d 31. The Walker court applied the Blockburger "same elements" test and the State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 667, 45 P. 318 (1896), "same evidence" test to analyze the double jeopardy issue. Id. at 885-86, 181 P.3d 31. The court analyzed the same criminal c......
-
State v. Gocken
...interpretation on article 1, section 9 occurred in 1896, 7 years after the Washington State Constitution was adopted. State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 45 P. 318 (1896). In Reiff this court ruled a successive prosecution for false pretenses under § 234 of the Penal Code was not barred by the do......