State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35077,35077 |
| Citation | 353 P.2d 155,56 Wn.2d 368 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Allen Calvin SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Henry Opendack, Seattle, argued to the Court on behalf of Appellant September 28, 1959. On March 11, 1960, he withdrew as attorney, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., James Alva Noe, Jr., Seattle, for respondent.
Sometime during the predawn hours of June 5, 1958, the premises of the Gourlay Lumber Company, a Seattle lumber and hardware establishment, were burglarized. Among the items stolen were a large safe, a new orange-colored 'Honko' power lawn mower, and certain power tools. At about 4:15 a. m., on the same morning, Officers Reed and Litzenberger, of the Seattle police department, while on a routine patrol, discovered signs of the burglary. They notified the owner, S. H. Gourlay. He came immediately to the scene and, after an examination of the premises, informed the officers as to what had been taken. At 6:30 a. m., Reed and Litzenberger were directed by police radio to proceed to a certain location a few blocks from the Gourlay premises. They were to investigate a report that a safe had been dumped along the roadway. They found a safe, discovered that it had been broken into, and learned from certain papers strewn about the area that it was the safe which had been stolen from Gourlay. Because of the size of the safe, the officers concluded that more than one person must have been involved in the burglary. Reed and Litzenberger returned to the precinct station at about 8:30 a. m. They were informed that a Mr. Fruetal had called in with a report that he had been awakened by loud noises coming from the premises next door to his home. He described the noises as sounding like 'some one hammering on a safe.' The officers were further told that Fruetal had also reported that Millard Tomlin (son of Fruetal's next-door neighbor) had been mowing the lawn with a new, reddish-colored power mower.
Reed and Litzenberger, accompanied by two detectives, thereupon proceeded to the Tomlin premises. Through an open garage door at the Tomlin premises they observed a new, orange-colored power mower, which conformed with the description of the one stolen from Gourlay. They also noticed a small house trailer located near the garage. Officer Reed entered the trailer and immediately discovered a note, signed 'Mickey,' to the effect that the author of the note had 'gone to Lake City for a few minutes and would be right back.' At the other end of the trailer, Reed found Allen Calvin Smith, the appellant, sleeping. He aroused Smith and without further ado placed him under arrest. Thereafter, the officers searched the garage. They seized the power mower, as well as certain power tools discovered therein to which price tags were still affixed. Subsequently, Millard Tomlin was also apprehended. Both Smith and Tomlin were charged with the Gourlay burglary. Tomlin pleaded guilty; Smith, alone, was tried.
Smith claimed at the trial that he was the subject of an unlawful arrest, and he moved that the physical evidence seized at the time of the arrest be suppressed. The motion was denied. Thereafter, Smith was convicted and sentenced. From this conviction the present appeal is taken.
Appellant has assigned as error: (1) the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized at the time of his arrest; and (2) the denial of a motion for a continuance, made in order to allow him to call Fruetal as a witness in his behalf.
Respecting the latter of these two assignments, it does not appear from the record that appellant ever subpoenaed Fruetal. We have held that it is not error for a trial court to deny a continuance to procure an absent witness where no showing is made by the moving party that a diligent attempt has been made to procure the presence of the witness. State v. Schmidt, 1927, 141 Wash. 660, 252 P. 118. The failure to cause a subpoena to issue clearly constitutes such a lack of diligence as to justify the denial of a motion for a continuance.
Appellant's first assignment of error, relating to the denial of his motion to suppress, raises the significant issue to be considered on this appeal. There is no dispute that the officers had not obtained a search warrant prior to searching the Tomlin premises and seizing the power mower and tools; nor did they have a warrant for the arrest of appellant Smith. Evidence can be collected without a search warrant only when it is obtained 'incident to a lawful arrest.' State v. Rousseau, 1952, 40 Wash.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447; State v. McCollum, 1943, 17 Wash.2d 85, 136 P.2d 165, 167, 141 P.2d 613; State v. Cohn, 1930, 155 Wash. 644, 285 P. 665. However, an arrest, even without a warrant, is lawful if the arresting officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony. State v. Miles 1948, 29 Wash.2d 921, 190 P.2d 740; State v. Hughlett, 1923, 124 Wash. 366, 214 P. 841. The state contends that, at the time of appellant's arrest, Officer Reed, who made the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe that appellant was involved in the Gourlay burglary, and, therefore, that the arrest and the concomitant search and seizure were lawful.
In State v. Miles, supra, the test to be applied in resolving the question as to probable cause was outlined as follows [29 Wash.2d 921, 190 P.2d 745]:
'Reasonable grounds' exist or may be said to be established if supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the arrested person to be guilty of a felony. State v. Young, 1952, 39 Wash.2d 910, 239 P.2d 858. The question then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cottrell, 975--III
...persuasive enough to convince a judge that a cautious but disinterested man would also believe the arrested person guilty. State v. Smith, 56 Wash.2d 368, 353 P.2d 155; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168; 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69......
-
State v. Green, 39066
...person that the accused is guilty of a felonious offense. State v. Darst, 65 Wash.2d 808, 399 P.2d 618 (1965); State v. Smith, 56 Wash.2d 368, 353 P.2d 155 (1960); Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407,......
-
State v. Mays
...court's order. State v. Williford, 64 Wash.Dec.2d 802, 394 P.2d 371; State v. Thompson, 59 Wash.2d 837, 370 P.2d 964; State v. Smith, 56 Wash.2d 368, 353 P.2d 155; State v. Hartwig, 36 Wash.2d 598, 219 P.2d 564; State v. Comer, 176 Wash. 257, 28 P.2d Appellant directs his second assignment ......
-
State v. Allen
...continuance only if the defendant demonstrates he has made a diligent effort to procure the presence of the witness. State v. Smith, 56 Wash.2d 368, 370, 353 P.2d 155 (1960). Here, the issue was raised only on the second day of trial, and the defendants failed to demonstrate they had made d......