State v. Richards

Decision Date17 November 1915
Docket Number12945.
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. RICHARDS.

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice Judge.

Leo Richards was indicted for attempted abduction. From a judgment of dismissal, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

H. E Donohoe, of Chehalis, and C. D. Cunningham, of Centralia, for the state.

MAIN, J.

The defendant in this case was by information charged with the crime of attempted abduction. To the information a demurrer was interposed and sustained by the trial court. Thereafter an amended information charging the same offense was filed. To the amended information a demurrer was interposed and likewise sustained by the trial court. The state refused to plead further and stood upon the amended information. A judgment was entered dismissing the action. From this judgment the appeal is prosecuted.

The only question in the case is whether the amended information charges the crime of attempted abduction. This information aside from the formal parts, is as follows:

'The said Leo Richards in said Lewis county, state of Washington, on, to wit, on or about the 24th day of February A. D. 1915, then and there being, did then and there willfully and unlawfully and feloniously, by means of persuasion, entreaty, advice, flattery, promises, and other means to the prosecuting attorney unknown, attempt to take May Parker, a female child under the age of eighteen (18) years, to wit, of the age of thirteen years, from the custody of her parents or legal guardians for the purpose of sexual intercourse, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.'

It will be noticed that it is alleged in the amended information that the respondent, by means of 'persuasion, entreaty, advice, flattery, promises, and other means to the prosecuting attorney unknown,' attempted to commit the crime charged.

By section 2439, Rem. & Bal. Code, the crime of 'abduction' is defined as follows:

'Every person who * * * shall take a female under the age of eighteen years for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, or without the consent of her father, mother, guardian or other person having legal charge of her person, for the purpose of marriage * * * shall be guilty of abduction and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both.'

By this statute, every person who shall take a female under the age of 18 years for the purposes therein stated is guilty of the crime of abduction. The taking necessary to constitute the crime under the statute may be effected by persuasion enticement, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Humburgs, 425--40978--1
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1970
    ... ... State v. Richards, 88 Wash. 160, 152 P. 720 (1915). Furthermore, the crime charged was committed when the taking occurred for the prohibited purposes. It is not a defense to the crime charged that subsequent sexual intercourse or prostitution was voluntary on the part of the person abducted nor would it have been ... ...
  • State v. Camp
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1965
    ...purpose of marriage need not be by force in order to come within the purview of RCW 9.79.050 was held by this court in State v. Richards, 88 Wash. 160, 152 P. 720 (1915), where it was By this statute, every person who shall take a female under the age of 18 years for the purposes therein st......
  • State v. Reese
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1974
    ...then your verdict will be not guilty.' In Humburgs the implicit definition of the word 'take' is too narrow. In State v. Richards, 88 Wash. 160, 152 P. 720 (1915), the charging portion of the information alleged 'means', including persuasion, entreaty and promises, along with the taking of ......
  • Maxham v. Berne
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1915
    ... ... questions. Following the uniform and well-settled practice in ... this state, the appeal must be dismissed. State ex rel ... Mortgage Co. v. Meacham, 17 Wash. 429, 50 P. 52 ... It is ... so ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT