State v. Superior Court In and For Pacific County

• Decision Date: 16 April 1926
• Docket Number: 19800.
• Citation: 245 P. 409,139 Wash. 1
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BERRY et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR PACIFIC COUNTY et al.

245 P. 409

139 Wash. 1

STATE ex rel. BERRY et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR PACIFIC COUNTY et al.

No. 19800.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 16, 1926

Department 1.

Application for writ of review by the State, on the relation of D. G Berry and others, against the Superior Court of the State in and for Pacific County, Hon. H. W. B. Hewen as Judge, and others, to review conviction of a minor as a delinquent child. Judgment reversed, with directions.

John I O'Phelan, of Raymond, and A. D. Gillies, of South Bend for respondents.

ASKREN J.

This is an application for a writ of review upon the finding of a jury that a minor was a delinquent child, and from sentence to the State Training School imposed thereafter by the court.

The minor, who will hereinafter be called the relator, was charged with being a delinquent child, in that on two different occasions he violated the traffic laws of the city of South Bend, and on another occasion violated the state law by reckless driving on a state highway.

The evidence showed that on April 12, 1924, the relator was brought before a justice of the peace in South Bend upon a charge of violating the city ordinances in driving faster than the speed permitted by law. The relator pleaded guilty to this offense. He was arraigned again on the 16th of April for a like offense. On the 8th day of May following relator drove an automobile along the paved highway outside of the city of South Bend at a very high rate of speed; some witnesses placing the speed as high as 60 miles per hour. The cutout on his car was open, and made so much noise that it was difficult to hear a horn or signal sounded in passing. There was another car in front that had been discernable for a long distance, and, in attempting to pass this car, relator drove off the road, striking a telephone pole 18 inches in diameter, and breaking it, smashing the rear portion of his car, and injured two of its occupants. It is the contention of relator that there was no evidence of reckless driving, and that what happened was a pure accident. This was a question for the jury to determine, and they determined it adversely to the relator. It is contended that the court erred in instructing as to the speed law of the state, which makes any speed over 30 miles per hour a violation of the speed law. The argument is that recklessness is not determined alone by the speed. This may be accepted as true; yet the question of the speed may be an important element in determining whether the action of the person charged is reckless. There was very substantial evidence that at the time relator's car attempted to pass it was going at a speed of 45 miles an hour. The fact that the car was driven at a rate of speed 15 miles an hour greater than that permitted by law, taken in conjunction with the fact that the accident happened upon a practically straight road, and that no signal was given in passing, made a sufficient showing to justify the court in holding that all these facts were material elements in determining whether or not the way in which the car was being operated was reckless, or that it tended to endanger the lives or inconvenience others using the highway.

Complaint is also made of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charge of delinquency in connection with the violation of the traffic ordinances. It seems to be contended that,...