State v. Reynolds, 34131
| Decision Date | 06 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34131,34131 |
| Citation | 322 P.2d 356,51 Wn.2d 830 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Dick REYNOLDS, Defendant, Bertha W. Reynolds, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Charles O. Carroll, Lawrence K. McDonell, Anthony Savage, Jr., Seattle, for appellant.
R. M. Burgunder, Seattle, for respondent.
Bertha W. Reynolds and Dick Reynolds, husband and wife, were secretary-treasurer and president, respectively, of the Federal Security Company (hereinafter called the company), a corporation engaged generally in the buying and selling of real-estate mortgages and contracts for investors and borrowers, who answered published advertisements concerning the company's services. Concurrently therewith, they operated the Dick Reynolds Insurance Agency (hereinafter referred to as the agency).
The company maintained two trust accounts, one for the investors' payments and one for payments on contracts made by borrowers. A third account was maintained in connection with the agency. Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds were each authorized to draw from these accounts. Mrs. Reynolds performed duties in connection with both the company and the agency, consisting of the following: She called upon prospective customers at their homes, talked with clients in the office, signed checks, prepared papers for mortgages, made bank deposits, withdrew funds from the trust accounts, received payments from borrowers, aided in the preparation of tax returns, directed the employees in posting recipts and disbursements in the ledgers, issued receipts for funds received from investors and borrowers, answered calls at the switchboard, worked on the books, and operated the office in the absence of Dick Reynolds.
In August, 1955, Armed J. Ravetti discussed with Dick and Bertha Reynolds the possibility of making an investment through the company. September 15, 1955, Mr. Ravetti delivered to the company a check in the sum of $9,928.77 to purchase a real-estate contract and two notes, each secured by a separate mortgage. At the time of the delivery of the check, Mr. Ravetti was given three company receipts, totaling the full amount of the check, for the three specified purchases. The Ravetti payment was entered in the company ledger. September 19, 1955, Dick Reynolds cashed the Ravetti check. The company delivered only the assignment of the realestate contract to Ravetti, representing $2,928.77 of the $9,928.77 which Ravetti had paid to the company. About December 2, 1955, Dick Reynolds absconded, and has not since been apprehended.
August 24, 1956, Dick and Bertha Reynolds were charged, by information, with four counts of grand larceny by embezzlement and one count of grand larceny by false representations. Upon arraignment, Bertha Reynolds entered a plea of not guilty. The cause was tried to a jury, and, at the close of the state's case, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the state's evidence as to all counts of the information. The court sustained the challenges except as to count IV relating to alleged embezzlement in the Ravetti transaction. The only evidence offered by Bertha Reynolds consisted of character testimony.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court sustained the defendant's motion for an order in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the state had 'failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt essential elements of the crime charged,' and that
'* * * the facts and circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff [state] to establish the guilt of Bertha W. Reynolds were not inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence and did not exclude any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, and that at most said defendant was only an accessory after the fact.'
The state has appealed, assigning as error the court's order arresting the judgment.
A motion in arrest of judgment raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 12(3), 34A Wash.2d 76. State v. Knizek, 1937, 192 Wash. 351, 73 P.2d 731; State v. Burnett, 1930, 157 Wash. 288, 288 P. 918.
Was the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury?
In State v. Lutes, 1951, 38 Wash.2d 475, 481, 230 P.2d 786, 790, we reaffirmed the rule announced in State v. McDaniels, 1948, 30 Wash.2d 76, 190 P.2d 705, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Suarez
... ... jury.'" State v. Hunter , 3 Wn.App. 552, ... 554, 475 P.2d 892 (1970) (quoting State v. Reynolds , ... 51 Wn.2d 830, 834, 322 P.2d 356 (1958)). Viewed in a light ... most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence is ... ...
-
State v. Young
...reasonable minds may draw different conclusions therefrom, the question is for the jury. State v. Thompson, supra; State v. Reynolds, 51 Wash.2d 830, 322 P.2d 356 (1958). Second, defendant argues that the presence of his fingerprint on the letter inside the mailing wrapper of the bomb was i......
-
State v. Tyler
...submit the issue of intent--or any other elemental issue--to the jury was a question of law for the court to resolve. State v. Reynolds, 51 Wash.2d 830, 322 P.2d 356 (1958). Before ruling on a motion to dismiss based on a failure to establish one of the elements of the crime charged, the co......
-
State v. Suarez
...therefrom, the question is for the jury.'" State v. Hunter, 3 Wn. App. 552, 554, 475 P.2d 892 (1970) (quoting State v. Reynolds, 51 Wn.2d 830, 834, 322 P.2d 356 (1958)). Viewed in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence is sufficient to support Hopson's conviction.Admissi......