State v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 06 March 1918
• Docket Number: 14613.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ROBERTS.

171 P. 225

100 Wash. 493

STATE v. ROBERTS.

No. 14613.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 6, 1918

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.

J. L Roberts was convicted of grafting, and he appeals. Affirmed.

H. W. Lueders, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Fred G Remann and J. W. Selden, both of Tacoma, for the State.

ELLIS C.J.

Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of grafting under an information charging, in substance, that in Pierce county, Wash., on or about March 12, 1917, he received from Frank Barron $210 upon the representation that he could and would influence Judge E M. Card to neglect and defer the performance of his duty as a judge of the superior court in the case of State v. Barron then pending in the department of that court in that county and state presided over by Judge Card, in that he would influence Judge Card to dismiss that case or delay proceedings therein so that Frank Barron would receive no punishment in that cause, and that it was not clearly understood in good faith between Barron and defendant that no means or influence should be employed except explanation and argument upon the merits of the case. Defendant demurred to the information on the grounds: (1) That it 'is not direct and certain as regards the crime charged,' and that (2) it 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.' The demurrer was overruled. When the case was called for trial, defendant requested that the state be required to elect whether it would stand upon the charge that defendant agreed to influence the court to dismiss the case, or the charge that he agreed to influence the court to delay proceedings therein. The request was denied. Before the jury was impaneled, the state, over defendant's objection, was permitted to indorse the names of three witnesses upon the information. No continuance was asked nor any claim of prejudice made.

It developed in evidence that the prosecuting witness, Barron, had been charged in Pierce county, Wash., with the crime of seduction. He had fled to Montana and had been brought back to Pierce county about March 1, 1917, through extradition proceedings. He had employed an attorney, and under his advice had entered a plea of not guilty. Through a Mrs. Waters, he met defendant at her house on Friday, March 9, 1917. As to what transpired at this and two subsequent meetings the evidence is in sharp conflict.

Barron, who evidently spoke English with difficulty, testified: That at this first meeting he told defendant, 'I got a little trouble.' That defendant answered: 'That is all right. I am going to pull you out.' That defendant asked and was told the name of the girl, and offered his services for $550, $300 down and $250 afterwards. That he then took the name of Barron's attorney and said he would see him and the deputy prosecuting attorney. That Barron then paid $90 to defendant, promising to pay the other $210 on the next Monday. Barron further testified that on the evening of Monday, March 12th, he and a friend, one Sledziewski, went to defendant's room in the Pierce Hotel. That defendant then asked him to pay the money, and said, 'I have your case and will handle it and get you out,' further stating that he had seen the prosecuting attorney who would not listen, but defendant had gone to the back door of Judge Card's office and talked to him, and Judge Card called in the prosecuting attorney and his assistant and talked to them, after which the assistant prosecutor told defendant he would let him know what they would do. That at one of these meetings defendant told Barron not to tell any one of the arrangement because if found out defendant would get a fine of $1,000, and that if a lawyer was needed defendant would furnish one as he did not like Barron's then attorney. That at this meeting of March 12th, defendant told Barron the cheapest way was to marry the girl, otherwise they would send him to the penitentiary; that if he married the girl he would not have to live with her. That Barron then said he would think it over and let him know the next day, but paid defendant the $210 at that time. That next day (he did not state the hour) he went to defendant's room and told him he would marry the girl. That defendant arranged for a meeting with the assistant prosecuting attorney on March 14th, when he (defendant), the assistant prosecutor, and a justice of the peace went to the White Shield Home, where the girl was staying, and he there married her. The case was then dismissed.

As to what happened at the second meeting when the $210 was paid, Sledziewski fully corroborated Barron, adding that defendant said:

'That he had certain ways of getting into Judge Card's office, and he could do more with Judge Card than people thought, or that (than) other people could; that he could not do anything with the prosecuting attorney's office, but that he could do more with Judge Card's office.'

He could not remember whether this was on the evening of March 12, or March 13, 1917.

Defendant denied that he promised to influence Judge Card, or that he claimed that he could do so, or claimed to have access to his office. He testified that there was no agreement as to how the money was to be used, except an understanding that he would endeavor to get two men, who, as Barron told him, had been keeping company with the girl, to testify to that fact and to swear that Barron had not had any relations with her, but that he told Barron he would not allow them to perjure themselves and would not 'frameup on the girl.' Yet he testified that at this same interview of March 12th, when Barron paid him the $210 to get this evidence, Barron had admitted in substance that he had seduced the girl under a promise of marriage, and that he at once advised Barron to marry her.

One Jacobson, a friend of defendant, testified that he was present at a meeting in defendant's room on the evening of March 12th or March 13th, and that some compromise with the prosecuting attorney's office was talked of, but defendant said nothing about seeing Judge Card. He stated, however, that he understood that the money had been paid the evening before, so that his testimony hardly contradicts that of Barron and Sledziewski.

It is hardly necessary to say that both Judge Card and the prosecuting attorney denied that defendant ever approached them in any surreptitious manner, and it is admitted that he never even spoke to Judge Card or approached him in any way. There was other evidence, but it casts little or no light upon the vital conflict here presented.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled. From the judgment of conviction and sentence, defendant appeals.

It is first contended that the information charges more than one crime. We confess to much difficulty in following appellant's argument on this point. It seems to amount to the following: The statute defining the crime of grafting (Rem. Code, § 2333) specifies three methods in which it may be committed. The terms...