State v. Royce

• Decision Date: 04 April 1905
• Parties: STATE v. ROYCE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P. 268

38 Wash. 111

STATE v. ROYCE.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 4, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L. Kennan, Judge.

William A. Royce was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, for appellant.

Horace Kimball and A. J. Laughon, for the State.

CROW J.

Appellant William A. Royce, was convicted of burglary, in the superior court of Spokane county, Wash., and has appealed to this court.

It appears that for about a month or six weeks after the 13th of April, 1903, appellant was boarding at the home of D. C McFarlane, in the city of Spokane; that McFarlane's family consisted of himself, his wife, his daughter, Pearl, and his wife's mother, a Mrs. Lewis. While appellant boarded with said family he was familiar with the house, and had knowledge of the fact that Pearl, the daughter, had a Remington typewriter. About July, 1903, after appellant had ceased boarding at the McFarlane home, Mrs. McFarlane and her daughter, Pearl, left for a visit in the East, and were absent about six weeks. Before leaving, they took numerous articles belonging to them, placed the same in an attic of the dwelling house, closed the door of said attic, and securely nailed it. During their absence the house was occupied by Mr. McFarlane and Mrs. Lewis, both of whom were absent during the daytime. On August 17, 1903, the house was burglariously entered, the door to the attic was broken, and some time thereafter it was discovered that the typewriter which had been placed in the attic had been taken. On the same day, August 17, 1903, the appellant pawned the typewriter to one Bickford, a pawnbroker in the city of Spokane. Bickford having made to the city police his usual report of articles pawned to him, one Officer Weir, a detective member of the Spokane police force, began to investigate the ownership of the typewriter. He found appellant at a poolroom in the city of Spokane, asked him whether he had pawned a typewriter, and appellant said, 'No.' Thereupon Weir took appellant with him to Bickford's place of business for the purpose of investigating. As they neared Bickford's store, appellant said: 'Do you mean a stenographer machine? I pawned a stenographer machine in here.' Afterwards appellant was taken to the police station by Officer Weir, where, in the presence of Weir and Officer McDermott, he was searched, and a pawn ticket calling for this particular typewriter was taken from his person. He made certain statements for the purpose of explaining his possession of the typewriter, claiming that it had been given to him by his mother about two years previously, but refused to tell one of the officers where he had been keeping the machine. A few days later, Mrs. McFarlane and her daughter having returned, the loss of the typewriter was discovered, and the machine, having been taken from Mr. Bickford's place of business to police headquarters, was identified as the one that had been taken from the McFarlane house. It appears that during the time the appellant boarded at McFarlane's a very warm attachment existed between him and the daughter, Pearl; that after he ceased boarding there a clandestine correspondence was conducted between them, against the objections of her parents. Later, the attachment between Pearl and appellant seems to have ceased, and on the trial he attempted, on cross-examination of the state's witnesses, to show a conspiracy on the part of the McFarlanes to send him to the penitentiary. On cross-examination of Pearl McFarlane, appellant undertook to introduce in evidence her letters to him, for the purpose of showing such conspiracy, the letters containing statements to the effect that Pearl's parents were threatening to send him to the penitentiary. These letters were written long before the date of the breaking into the building. Upon objection, the court refused to admit the letters in evidence. They were not offered at any time except on the cross-examination of Pearl, while she was testifying as a witness for the state. It might be said that Pearl, in her cross-examination, admitted having made all of the statements contained in the letters. There was no evidence tending to show that her parents at any time knew of their existence or contents. The pawn ticket taken from the possession of appellant was also introduced in evidence, against his objection. Officers McDermott and Weir were permitted to testify to statements made by appellant when he was searched by them at police headquarters, at a time before any charge had been preferred against him.

Appellant has made several assignments of error, in substance as follows: (1) That the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the letters written by Pearl McFarlane to appellant; (2) that the court erred in admitting in evidence the statements made by appellant to Officers Weir and McDermott; (3) that the court erred in admitting in evidence the pawn ticket taken from the possession of appellant; (4) that the court erred in refusing to discharge the defendant on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction, in denying appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in denying appellant's motion for a new trial, and in refusing to instruct the jury to find the appellant not guilty; (5) that the court erred in rejecting certain evidence of the witnesses Parker and Stingle, offered by appellant. We will consider these assignments in their order.

1. The trial court committed no error in refusing to admit the letters of Pearl McFarlane, which were offered by appellant upon the cross-examination of said Pearl when she was a witness for the state. An examination of the letters shown they contained no statements which Pearl failed to admit having made. The only other purpose for offering the same, as stated by counsel for appellant, was to show a conspiracy on the part of McFarlane and wife to send appellant to the penitentiary. As against McFarlane and wife, these letters were only hearsay. Nor do we think they tend to show any such conspiracy. We fail to see how these letters could have been at all material or proper evidence.

2. Appellant also insists the court erred in admitting in evidence the statements made by appellant to Officers Weir and McDermott while at the police station. It appears from the cross-examination of Officer McDermott that he was endeavoring to learn where the typewriter pawned by appellant came from. He states that at the time of the conversation appellant had not been charged with any crime or misdemeanor but was simply in the police office with the officers. Appellant seems to...