State v. Runnells
| Decision Date | 09 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37211,37211 |
| Citation | 64 Wn.2d 995,390 P.2d 1003 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Robert B. RUNNELLS, Appellant. |
Hughes & Jeffers, Wenatchee, for appellant.
E. R. Whitmore, Jr., and Robert E. Graham, Wenatchee, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of first degree forgery. He took the stand in his own defense, claimed he was an alcoholic, and testified that he had 'blanked out' and did not remember forging an endorsement on a check.
Defendant makes three assignments of error: The first and second to the court's refusal to give two requested instructions, and the third to Instruction No. 13-A. All refer to intoxication as a defense.
Instruction No. 13, to which no error is assigned, paraphrases RCW 9.01.114. 1 Defendant admits that this instruction is a correct statement of the law, but contends that when it is considered with Instruction No. 13-A, to which error is assigned, the latter takes from the jury its right to consider the defense of intoxication. Instruction No. 13-A reads as follows:
The language of the instruction does not support this contention.
Instruction No. 13-A was taken nearly verbatim from instructions that were approved in State v. Miller, 177 Wash. 442, 462, 32 P.2d 535 (1934) and State v. Cogswell, 54 Wash.2d 240, 246, 339 P.2d 465 (1959). For the reasons stated in Miller, supra, we conclude that the instruction was not erroneous.
The jury having been correctly instructed upon the law applicable to intoxication as a defense, it was not error to refuse to give the requested instructions upon the same subject.
The judgment is affimred.
1 RCW 9.01.114....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boyd, 5703-I
... ... Claybourne, 14 Wash.App. 314, 541 P.2d 1230 (1975) ... Although voluntary intoxication is recognized and defined by statute, RCW 9A.16.090, as a factor which may be considered in determining whether a given mental state exists, it is not a favored concept. See State v. Runnells, 64 Wash.2d 995, 390 P.2d 1003 (1964); State v. Miller, [586 P.2d 882] 177 Wash. 442, 462, 32 P.2d 535 (1934). Cf. State v. Kroll, 87 Wash.2d 829, 558 P.2d 173 (1976); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 68(a), n. 35 (1973) ... An uncritical reading of some of the decisions of this ... ...
-
State v. Kroll
... ... Such language has, however, been approved in the past. State v. Runnells, 64 Wash.2d 995, 390 P.2d 1003 (1964); State v. Miller, 177 Wash. 442, 32 P.2d 535 (1934). Taking the instructions as a whole, we do not find that the sentence constitutes reversible error. It does seem, though that the language is unnecessarily emphatic and it should be deleted in the future ... ...
-
State v. Colwash, 944--III
... ... 22 and the court's refusal to give his proposed instruction No. 33 relating to voluntary intoxication. We find no error. Instruction No. 22 is phrased in virtually the same language as the instructions considered and approved in State v. Runnells, 64 Wash.2d 995, 390 P.2d 1003 (1963), and State v. Mello, 79 Wash.2d 279, 484 P.2d 910 (1971) ... Second, error is assigned to the giving of instruction No. 9: ... When the felonious killing of a human being by another is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the law presumes that ... ...
-
English, In re
... ... [390 P.2d 1000] Anderson & Hunter, J. P. Hunter, Everett, for defendant ... T. M. Royce, Bar Counsel Wash. State Bar Ass'n, Seattle, for Bar Ass'n ... HAMILTON, Judge ... In September, 1939, Daniel J. English was admitted to the ... ...