State v. Robbins, 29790.

• Citation: 169 P.2d 246,25 Wn.2d 110
• Decision Date: 22 May 1946
• Docket Number: 29790.
• Parties: STATE v. ROBBINS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

169 P.2d 246

25 Wn.2d 110

STATE v. ROBBINS.

No. 29790.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 22, 1946

Department 1

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1946.

Browning Robbins was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; James T Lawler, Judge.

Browning Robbins was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

John F Garvin, of Seattle, for appellant.

Lloyd Shorett and J. Edmund Quigley, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MILLARD Justice.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery upon an information charging that he abetted and assisted George A. Leader to unlawfully, by force and violence, take from J. H. Van Gesen in the county of King, certain narcotics which were the property of one J. F. Smith. From judgment and sentence entered on the verdict defendant appeals.

The state's evidence, which the verdict reflects was accepted by the jury as true, clearly establishes appellant's guilt of the crime charged:

While J. H. Van Gesen, the clerk in charge, was alone in the Smith Durg Store in the city of Seattle the evening of April 27, 1945, he was compelled at the point of a gun to surrender narcotics to a man whose description Van Gesen gave to the police immediately on the departure of the robber from the drug store. The federal and Seattle police officers were convinced by that description that George A. Leader and Browning Robbins were the robbers. The officers went to a house known to be the rendezvous of these two men where they found George A. Leader whom they arrested and from whom they secured a quantity of narcotics. Acting on information obtained from Leader the officers proceeded immediately to the residence of appellant where he was placed under arrest and a phial of narcotics was taken from a pocket of his trousers. That tube of narcotics was identified as part of the narcotics taken from the Smith Drug Store which appellant received from George A. Leader.

At police headquarters appellant stated that he operated the automobile in which he and Leader went to the vicinity of the robbery. After waiting for Leader to commit the robbery he then took Leader in the automobile to the rendezvous (where Leader was later arrested) when Leader gave to appellant the narcotics found on the person of appellant at the time he was arrested. The testimony of appellant on direct examination by his counsel differed not from the statement made by him when taken to police headquarters.

George A. Leader, called as a witness on behalf of the state, refused to testify, claiming his constitutional right to not give evidence against himself. While he answered questions as to his name, place of residence and past employment, he was not interrogated with reference to appellant or the crime charged. At the close of the direct examination of Leader, appellant's counsel requested that a document be marked 'defendant's exhibit No. 2 for identification.' He then asked Leader, 'Is that your signature, George?' Following Leader's reply in the affirmative appellant's counsel stated 'That is all.'

Appellant first assigns as error the court's refusal to admit in evidence a photograph which it was claimed disclosed the actual condition of appellant's body the day following his release from jail on bond. We are not advised on what theory the photograph was admissible or what probative force it could have had in this trial. There is no contention that appellant had been beaten and thereby compelled to make a false confession. Appellant admitted his guilt and adopted as true his confession or statement made at police headquarters. The trial court ruled correctly.

Error is next...