State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14742. |
| Citation | 103 Wash. 267,174 P. 9 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMITH. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; R. M. Webster Judge.
E. M Smith was convicted of selling morphine without a physician's prescription, and he appeals. Reversed.
Nuzum Clark & Nuzum, of Spokane, for appellant.
John B White and T. T. Grant, both of Spokane, for the State.
The appellant was convicted of selling morphine without a physician's prescription. Evidence was admitted of various alleged illegal sales of morphine by the appellant to four persons other than the prosecuting witness. Offered evidence of a medical expert was refused, this evidence being offered to show the effect of morphine upon the mental condition of a person addicted to its use, as was the prosecuting witness at the time of her purchase of the drug from the appellant, and her arrest. Instructions were refused which directed the jury to view with caution and suspicion the testimony of prostitutes and drug users. Error is predicated upon these matters and several others which we will not discuss in this opinion.
1. There is no more insidious and dangerous testimony than that which attempts to convict a defendant by producing evidence of crimes other than the one for which he is on trial, and such testimony should only be admitted when clearly necessary to establish the essential elements of the charge which is being prosecuted. To establish guilty intent, unlawful motive, or criminal knowledge, it is permissible to show that the act charged against the defendant was one in a series of similar ones; but beyond this the state cannot go, and for the purpose of securing a conviction show the perpetration of other similar acts, even though committed in furtherance of a general scheme, where there is no proof required to establish intent, motive, or knowledge, other than proof of the act charged itself. In other words, where the act charged against the defendant itself characterizes the offense, the guilty intent is proven by proving the act. Here the proof of giving of dry morphine on a prescription calling for morphine in solution was proof of the intent, and nothing more was necessary to establish criminality. This has been the holding of this court in State v. Bokien, 14 Wash 403, 44 P. 889, State v. Gottfreedson, 24 Wash. 398 64 P. 523, and State v. Oppenheimer, 41 Wash. 630, 84 P. 588, and has not been modified by State v. Pittam, 32 Wash. 137, 72 P. 1042; State v. Craddick, 61 Wash. 425, 112 P. 491; State v. Wappenstein, 67 Wash. 505, 121 P. 989; State v. Downer, 68 Wash. 672, 123 P. 1073, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774; State v. Hazzard, 75 Wash. 5, 134 P. 514; State v. Shea, 78 Wash. 342, 139 P. 203; State v. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 153 P. 1084, Ann....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
...on the grounds of necessity. See State v. Choate, 228 N.C. 491, 46 S.E.2d 476; State v. Brown, 202 N.C. 221, 162 S.E. 216; State v. Smith, 103 Wash. 267, 174 P. 9; Clyne v. State, 123 Ohio St. 234, 174 N.E. This Court has adopted a different approach. In the case of State v. Lewis, W.Va., 5......
-
State v. Russell
...719, 578 P.2d 43 (1978); State v. Hall, 46 Wash.App. 689, 692, 732 P.2d 524, review denied, 108 Wash.2d 1004 (1987); State v. Smith, 103 Wash. 267, 269, 174 P. 9 (1918); see also David J. Oliveiri, Annotation, Use of Drugs as Affecting Competency or Credibility of Witness, 65 A.L.R.3d 705 §......
-
People v. Williams
...147; Anderson v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 365, 144 S.W. 281; Lankford v. Tombari, 35 Wash.2d 412, 213 P.2d 627, 19 A.L.R.2d 462; State v. Smith, 103 Wash. 267, 174 P. 9; State v. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 153 P. 1084; State v. Concannon, 25 Wash. 327, 65 P. 534; State v. Robinson, 12 Wash. 491, 41 P.......
-
State v. Stamm
...on whether the particular mental disorder would affect credibility. State v. Smythe, 148 Wash. 65, 268 P. 133 (1928); State v. Smith, 103 Wash. 267, 174 P. 9 (1918); State v. Schuman, 89 Wash. 9, 153 P. 1084 (1915); Annot., 20 A.L.R.2d 687 (1968). Here, there was no abuse of discretion. 1 T......