State v. St. Peter, 36465

• Decision Date: 26 December 1963
• Docket Number: No. 36465,36465
• Citation: State v. St. Peter, 387 P.2d 937, 63 Wn.2d 495 (Wash. 1963)
• Parties: The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Arthur ST. PETER, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 495

63 Wn.2d 495

387 P.2d 937

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v.Arthur ST. PETER, Appellant.

No. 36465.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.

Dec. 26, 1963.

Bennett Feigenbaum, Seattle, for appellant.

Charles O. Carroll, Pros.Atty., Richard M. Foreman, Deputy Pros.Atty., Seattle, for respondent.

ROSELLINI, Judge.

The appellant was found guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.The evidence establishes that he shot at a law enforcement officer who was attempting to place him under arrest.

The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance or a change of venue.His argument is that, due to the inflammatory nature of certain newspaper articles which had been published immediately prior to the trial, it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial at that time and place.He maintains that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant him the relief sought.It is a sufficient answer to this contention to note that all jurors who had read or heard of the appellant were excused from serving in this case.

It is next urged that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to compel the prosecution to produce copies of reports of certain prosecution witnesses, after having granted a motion made by the state for an order compelling the appellant to produce a copy of a report of an examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist.Neither the psychiatric report nor any of the issues which this evidence might have engendered was used at the trial.

As to the court's denial of pretrial discovery, we are not in a position to say that the trial court abused its discretion since there is no showing that the appellant was handicapped by this refusal.The appellant concedes the rule to be that criminal pretrial discovery rests entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court and his rulings will not be disturbed on appeal except for manifest abuse of that discretion.Recent decisions so holding are State v. Mesaros, 162 Wash.Dec. 569, 384 P.2d 372;State v. Robinson, 161 Wash.Dec. 107, 377 P.2d 248;andState v. Beck, 56 Wash.2d 474, 349 P.2d 387.

The third assignment of error concerns the court's instruction No. 4, which in part advised the jury that shooting at, toward or into the body of another was an assault as that term was used in the instructions.It is true that this statement, standing alone, is incorrect.The shooting must be accompanied by the requisite felonious intent.However, the rule is that instructions must be read, considered, and applied as a whole.State v. Refsnes, 14 Wash.2d 569...