State v. Schock, 32004
| Citation | 250 P.2d 516,41 Wn.2d 572 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32004,32004 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | STATE, v. SCHOCK. |
Walter V. Swanson and Douglas A. Wilson, Yakima, for appellant.
Ronald R. Hull and Perry J. Robinson, Yakima, for respondent.
Henry B. Schock was tried for the crime of taking indecent liberties with a minor female. He was convicted, and judgment was entered accordingly. On this appeal, all of Schock's assignments of error revolve around the receipt in evidence of certain feed store sales slips. They were introduced by the prosecution to rebut the defense of alibi. Appellant argues that the slips were irrelevant and prejudicial; that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct in connection with the introduction of these exhibits; and that, without the sales slips, the evidence does not support the verdict of the jury.
The crime was committed at about 3 o'clock p. m., April 24, 1951, on a country road in West Wapato, Yakima county. Appellant, who operates trucking and box strapping businesses, maintains his office approximately twelve miles from the scene of the crime. Much of his testimony was devoted to the tracing of his movements and whereabouts between 2:30 and 3:30 p. m. on the day the crime was committed. Among other things, he testified that at 2:30 p. m. he arrived at the Fairview Feed store in Yakima and bought two sacks of mash; that he next went to his ranch and fed the chickens; and that he then went to his office, arriving there about 3 p. m. The testimony of several witnesses, if believed by the jury, tended to support this alibi.
In an effort to rebut Schock's testimony, the state first called Norma Alexander, a clerk at Fairview Feed store. She testified that Schock was in the store on April 24, 1951. A sales slip of that date, made out to Schock and showing the purchase of mash, was then identified. It is a printed slip with two holes at the top end, and serial number AO5611 in red printed at the bottom. The witness testified that she made out the slip. Counsel for appellant then interjected this statement: 'We have been informed at your place there is no way we can tell the time of day--[interrupting colloquy]--of these slips.' The witness replied: 'No, you can't.' This sales slip was then introduced, without objection, as exhibit No. 5.
Miss Alexander then testified that Schock and his attorney had called upon her two days after the arrest, and had tried to get her to establish the time of day, on April 24, 1951, when Schock was in the feed store. The witness next identified a sales slip, similar to exhibit No. 5, but with serial number AO5615, which had been made out to B. Wayneberg, on April 24, 1951. Miss Alexander also made out this slip, and it was her recollection that the Wayneberg transaction took place in the morning.
The witness testified that sales slips issued by the store are numbered serially. There was then identified a pack of thirty-two similar sales slips, with serial numbers ranging from AO5601 to AO5637, all dated April 24, 1951. Miss Alexander testified that she made out some, but not all, of these sales slips. In answer to questions then interjected by counsel for appellant, she testified that there is another clerk at the feed store and that there are two machines for making out the sales slips. The Wayneberg sales slip and the pack of sales slips were then offered as exhibits Nos. 6 and 7. Counsel for appellant objected on the following ground:
After some colloquy between the judge and the prosecuting attorney, these two exhibits were received. The state then called Bruce Wayneberg, who testified that he made his purchase at the feed store on April 24, 1951, during the noon hour or shortly thereafter.
Calling attention to Norma Alexander's testimony that there was no way one could tell the time of say the sales slips were issued, appellant argues that exhibits Nos. 6 and 7 were therefore irrelevant and that his objection on that ground should have been sustained.
Bearing in mind that Norma Alexander so testified before any reference was made to the Wayneberg transaction, it is obvious that she meant to say only that the serial numbers on the slips would not, of themselves, be sufficient to establish the time of day of their issuance. The witness was never asked specifically whether or not the time of day one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Golladay
...(State v. Jeane, 35 Wash.2d 423, 213 P.2d 633 (1950)), and in determining the admissibility of relevant evidence (State v. Schock, 41 Wash.2d 572, 250 P.2d 516 (1952)), the probative value of the evidence must be weighed and balanced against any prejudice which it may entail; this is to say......
-
State v. Whalon
...is whether the evidence gives rise to reasonable inferences regarding contested matter or throws any light upon it. State v. Schock, 41 Wash.2d 572, 250 P.2d 516 (1952). Relevancy means a logical relation between evidence and the fact to be established. Chase v. Beard, 55 Wash.2d 58, 346 P.......
-
Kubista v. Romaine, 1317--II
...is whether the evidence gives rise to reasonable inferences regarding contested matters or sheds any light upon them. State v. Schock, 41 Wash.2d 572, 250 P.2d 516 (1952); State v. Whalon, 1 Wash.App. 785, 464 P.2d 730 (1970). Relevancy means a logical relationship between evidence (offered......
-
State v. Rolax
...judge. State v. Schrager, 74 Wash.2d 75, 442 P.2d 1004 (1968); State v. Gersvold, 66 Wash.2d 900, 406 P.2d 318 (1965); State v. Schock, 41 Wash.2d 572, 250 P.2d 516 (1952). It is appropriate to admit testimony on facts which throw light upon the contested matter in view of the involvement o......