State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 19910. |
| Citation | 252 P. 530,142 Wash. 57 |
| Parties | STATE v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hall, Judge.
Thomas S. Smith and Paul S. Norton were convicted of arson, and defendant Norton appeals. Reversed, with instructions.
Morris & Dubuar, of Seattle, for appellant.
Loren Grinstead and Grinstead, Laube & Laughlin, all of Seattle amici curiae.
Ewing D. Colvin and Ralph Hammer, both of Seattle, for the State.
The defendant Norton and one Thomas S. Smith were jointly charged with the crime of arson, and upon trial were convicted. Norton has appealed, and raised numerous assignments of error.
It is first urged that error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give an instruction to the effect that, when a building is burned, the presumption is that the fire was caused by accident or natural causes rather than by the deliberate act of the accused.
In State v. Pienick, 46 Wash. 522, 90 P. 645, 11 L. R A. (N. S.) 987, 13 Ann. Cas. 800, we stated the rule to be that, 'where a building is burned, the presumption is that the fire was caused by accident or natural causes rather than by the deliberate act of the accused.' We there held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction. The requested instruction properly stated the law.
The theory upon which the refusal to give this instruction is sought to be upheld by counsel for the state is that, since the state offered evidence indicating the fire was of incendiary origin, the presumption falls of its own weight. But we think this argument is unsound. There is always a presumption that a fire is of accidental origin where the origin is a contested issue. In the instant case the question of whether the fire was so set was a very serious one. There were facts relied upon by the state that it believed showed that the fire was incendiary. On the other hand, the appellant insisted just as strongly that the evidence did not establish that fact. The evidence showed two previous fires in the same building, neither of which, apparently, were incendiary. The issues were thus presented to the jury on this point. Was not the appellant entitled to the presumption that the fire was of accidental origin in a case where its origin was actually disputed?
To hold otherwise is to say that the presumption can never be available to a defendant in any case where the state seeks to show what caused the fire. Manifestly, this robs the defendant of a very vital protection in a case of this character.
The state seems to argue that this presumption is proper for the court to indulge in when it determines whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. If this be so then we know of no reason why the jury should not be so instructed when they are to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the origin of the fire.
In Randall v. State, 3 Ga.App. 653, 60 S.E. 328, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held by analogy the same result we have reached here....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Picard, 19321-3-II
...beyond a reasonable doubt, allowed Picard to argue his theory of the case. We note that the Kindred opinion relies on State v. Smith, 142 Wash. 57, 252 P. 530 (1927). In Smith, our Supreme Court held that when the instruction was timely requested and supported by substantial evidence, failu......
-
State v. Jones
...(1955); Ricketts v. State, 192 Tenn. 649, 241 S.W.2d 604 (1950); State v. Blocker, 205 S.C. 303, 31 S.E.2d 908 (1944); State v. Smith, 142 Wash. 57, 252 P. 530 (1927); 6A C.J.S. Arson § 38; 5 Am.Jur.2d Arson §§ 46, This rule has been utilized in determining whether the state has sustained i......
-
State v. Johnson
...In this particular case there were no facts presented raising any issue as to the incendiary origin of this fire. In State v. Smith, 142 Wash. 57, 252 P. 530, 531 (1927), that court stated: 'There is always a presumption that a fire is of accidental origin where the origin is a contested is......
-
State v. Morgan
...Clerk's Papers at 108. 110. Picard, 90 Wn. App. at 903: see State v. Kindred, 16 Wn. App. 138, 141, 553 P.2d 121 (1976). 111. 142 Wash. 57, 252 P. 530 (1927). 112. Picard, 90 Wn. App. at 903; see generally, Smith 142 Wash. at 58. 113. 90 Wn. App. 890, 903, 954 P.2d 336 (1998). 114. State v.......