State v. Ryan
Decision Date | 20 July 1931 |
Docket Number | 23223. |
Citation | 1 P.2d 893,163 Wash. 496 |
Parties | STATE v. RYAN. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Chas. H. Leavy, Judge.
Jack Ryan was convicted of the crime of being a jointist, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Donovan & Donovan, of Spokane, for appellant.
Chas W. Greenough and Ralph E. Foley, both of Spokane, for the State.
Jack Ryan, Grace Pierson, and Catherine Carmody were charged by information with the crime of being jointists.Catherine Carmody was acquitted.The other two defendants were convicted.Motion for a new trial being made and overruled they gave notice of appeal.Shortly thereafter Grace Pierson died, leaving Ryan to prosecute this appeal alone.
From the evidence the jury were warranted in finding the following facts: That for approximately seven years prior to and on March 3, 1930, appellant, an unmaried man, was the proprietor of the Jewel Hotel, located at Spokane, Wash.This hotel contains some thirty-four or thirty-five rooms or apartments is equippped for light housekeeping--the guests taking care of their own quarters.Appellant employed but one maid, Grace Pierson, who took care of the hallways, did odd jobs about the hotel, and cooked appellant's meals, sometimes in his apartment and sometimes in her apartment.For these services she received $5 per week.She occupied apartment 9, and appellant occupied an apartment consisting of rooms 5 and 6.These two apartments were in close proximity to each other and readily accessible by either party.Catherine Carmody occupied room 22, located at the rear of the hotel.Carmody had lived at the hotel some nine or ten months prior to the night of the raid, during which time she was unemployed and frequently seen loitering about the lobby of the hotel.
During the latter part of February, 1930.Jack Haun and one Gilmore, undercover agents employed by the sheriff of Spokane county, went to the hotel for the purpose of determining whether the prohibition laws were being violated and if so to obtain evidence thereof.The latter rented room 7 from appellant.
On March 1, 1930, Haun and a young woman, whose identity is undisclosed by the evidence, while passing through the lobby of the hotel on their way to visit Gilmore, noticed one Joe Gulli, a guest of the hotel who had occupied room 24 for some four or five years, playing at cards.Presently she called him to Gilmore's room.Shortly thereafter Gulli left the room and returned within a few moments with a pint of whisky which he had purchased from Carmody.In about fifteen or twenty minutes Gilmore and his guests purchased another pint of whisky from Carmody.Frequently persons, other than guests, called at the hotel at nighttime and inquired for the appellant, and were then seen going into appellant's rooms and presently would be seen accompanying Carmody to the rear of the hotel and in the direction of her room.Joe Gulli testified that he knew she was selling whisky.She was seen delivering small packages to men near the office of the hotel and receiving money.Gilmore testified he had purchased a pint of liquor from Carmody on the night of March 3.
On the evening of March 3, Deputy Sheriff Walter, a Miss Smith, Haun, and Gilmore went to the latter's room, and soon thereafter Gilmore left the room and inquired of appellant whether he'could get a quart of whisky.'Ryan replied: 'Go see Grace in room 9.'Gilmore did so, and appellant nodded his head, indicating to her that it was all right to make the sale, and thereupon she sold him two pints of whisky, which Gilmore took to his room.Within about fifteen minutes Gilmore again called at apartment 9 and ordered more liquor from Pierson, at which time appellant was in her apartment, within hearing distance, eating supper.Presently Pierson delivered two pints of liquor at room 7, at which time she was placed under arrest.At this junction three deputy sheriffs armed with a search warrant searched room 9 and found a gallon jug partially filled with moonshine whisky concealed in her trunk.The officers also found a whisky glass on the table.
In addition to the foregoing, the jury were warranted in finding these additional facts: That Jack Haun had been employed by the sheriff of Spokane county during the month of August, 1929, and that on or about the 10th or 12th of that month he purchased a pint of whisky from appellant.On December 26, 1929, two police officers and two deputy sheriffs and an undercover agent drove to the vicinity of this hotel, parked their car, gave the agent two marked silver dollars, and, after having searched him, sent him to the hotel.Within about three or five minutes he returned and handed the officers a pint of moonshine whisky.The officers immediately went to the hotel, knocked at the door leading into room 9, which attracted the attention of appellant and Miss Pierson who were engaged in hanging curtains in the hallway a short distance from this room.On seeing the officers, the latter remarked: 'Here is the party you want to see.'Immediately appellant went to the door of room 9, and the officers informed him who they were and that they had a search warrant for that room, whereupon he opened the door, at which time one of the officers searched the appellant and found the two marked silver dollars in his pocket, and then the officers searched the room.Later appellant stated to one of the officers: 'I will give you one hundred dollars for the marked money and pint of whisky.'
Appellant first contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Summers
...destroy or carry off objects of the search. City of Olympia v. Culp, 136 Wash. 374, 377, 240 P. 360, 361 (1925); State v. Ryan, 163 Wash. 496, 502, 1 P.2d 893, 896 (1931); State v. Valdez, 91 N.M. 567, 568-569, 577 P.2d 465, 467 (Ct.App.1978). We agree. Indeed, the Federal First Circuit tre......
-
State v. Cottrell, 975--III
...Tacoma v. Mundell, 6 Wash.App. 673, 495 P.2d 682 (1972); Olympia v. Culp, 136 Wash. 374, 377, 240 P. 360 (1925); State v. Ryan, 163 Wash. 496, 502, 1 P.2d 893 (1931). However, the protection offered by the constitutional provisions should not allow absurd results. United States v. Hall, 488......
-
State v. Funk
...127 Wash. 288, 220 P. 808; State v. Nilnch, 131 Wash. 344, 230 P. 129; State v. Beaupre, 149 Wash. 675, 272 P. 26; State v. Ryan, 163 Wash. 496, 1 P.2d 893. In case of State v. Pielow, 141 Wash. 302, 251 P. 586, a state of facts was presented quite similar to that now Before us; this court ......
-
State v. Valdez
...were carried away. See Frankel v. State, 178 Md. 553, 16 A.2d 93 (1940); Van Horn v. State, 496 P.2d 121 (Okl.Cr.1972); State v. Ryan, 163 Wash. 496, 1 P.2d 893 (1931). Whether the detention is called an investigatory stop or an arrest, it is reasonable to detain persons found on the premis......