State v. Roberts
Decision Date | 25 July 1927 |
Docket Number | 20453. |
Citation | 258 P. 32,144 Wash. 381 |
Parties | STATE v. ROBERTS. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Charles P. Moriarty, Judge.
Arthur T. Roberts was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Henry Clay Agnew, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ewing D. Colvin and Harry A. Rhodes, both of Seattle, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary, and upon sentence therefor appeals, urging a single assignment of error. This error is said to lurk in the following instruction given to the jury:
Appellant claims that the use of the words, 'some evidence has been offered in this case of the flight of the defendants immediately or soon after the act alleged as the crime with which the defendants are here charged,' amounts to a comment on the evidence forbidden by article 4, § 16, of the state Constitution. In this connection is cited State v Belknap, 44 Wash. 605, 87 P. 934, where we held that, if the question of flight was a controverted one, it would be error for the court to give the following instruction:
'The jury are authorized to consider the flight of the defendant after a warrant was issued for his arrest, or after he learned that a prosecution was to be instituted against him, and it is for [the jury] to say just how much weight, if any, they shall give that fact as an evidence of guilt.'
It will be noticed, however, that the two instructions are dissimilar. In the latter the flight is assumed as a proven fact, while in the instruction complained of in the instant case the court told the jury specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Collins
...Traction Co., 1901, 26 Wash. 264, 270, 66 P. 404, 406. See, also, State v. Bogart, 1944, 21 Wash.2d 765, 153 P.2d 507; State v. Roberts, 1927, 144 Wash. 381, 258 P. 32; State v. Dukich, 1924, 131 Wash. 50, 228 P. In considering the other phase of the criticism of the supplementary instructi......
-
State v. Galbreath
...sufficiency of the evidence, do not constitute proscribed comments. State v. Dukich, 131 Wash. 50, 228 P. 1019 (1924); State v. Roberts, 144 Wash. 381, 258 P. 32 (1927); State v. Green, 158 Wash. 574, 291 P. 728 (1930); State v. Bogart, 21 Wash.2d 765, 153 P.2d 507 (1944); State v. Collins,......
-
State v. Clayton
...of this same nature and effect were carefully and comprehensively given by the trial court in the case now Before us. In State v. Roberts, 144 Wash. 381, 258 P. 32, where was contended that an instruction amounted to a comment on the evidence, this court disposed of the contention with the ......
-
State v. Willits
...held 'The trial court is not forbidden to make reference to the evidence, but is only forbidden to comment thereon.' State v. Roberts, 144 Wash. 381, 258 P. 32, and citations. The word 'comment' as used in the Constitution has the usual connotation of an expression of opinion. See Webster's......