State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 21 December 1923
• Docket Number: 18149.
• Citation: 127 Wash. 588,221 P. 603
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SMITH.

221 P. 603

127 Wash. 588

STATE v. SMITH.

No. 18149.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 21, 1923

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Mills, Judge.

J. D (Slim) Smith was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.Affirmed.

M. A Stafford and T. M. McKinney, both of Walla Walla, for appellant.

A. J Gillis and W. G. Colman, both of Walla Walla, for the State.

PEMBERTON J.

On the 23d day of February, 1923, the appellant was found guilty by a jury of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.After denial of a motion for a new trial, judgment was entered, from which this appeal is taken.

It is claimed that the court erred in giving to the jury instructions Nos. 5 and 6, as follows:

'It is the right of the state or of the sheriff to employ special officers for the purpose of collecting evidence in such cases as this, as well as in other cases, and it is for you to determine from all of the evidence in the case including that of the special officers who have testified whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged against him; and if, after considering all of the evidence before you, you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged against him, it is your duty to so find by your verdict; otherwise, it is your duty to find him not guilty.'

'Even though you shall find from the evidence in this case that the sheriff's office has employed some of the witnesses who have testified, as special officers, and if you further find that these special officers applied to the defendant to purchase intoxicating liquor, and that the intoxicating liquor was sold by the defendant to the special officers without any unlawful intent on the part of the special officers to violate the law, but merely to collect evidence, then such conduct on the part of the special officers would not make them accomplices, or parties to the offense, and it is not necessary in such a case that the testimony of these witnesses should be corroborated before the jury could find the defendant guilty of the offense against him, but in this connection you are again instructed that, before you can find the defendant guilty of the offense charged against him, you must take into consideration all of the evidence in the case, and after a full and fair consideration of all of the evidence must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he is

...