State v. Tatum, 35383
| Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35383,35383 |
| Citation | 360 P.2d 754,58 Wn.2d 73 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Ralph TATUM, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Moore & Rabideau, Pasco, for appellant.
Roger L. Olson, Pros. Atty., Pasco, for respondent.
Ralph Tatum (hereinafter called appellant) was convicted of the crime of first degree forgery and was sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual criminal.
The essential facts of the case are summarized as follows:
One William Tousin, of Pasco, received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. In February, 1960, Tousin did not receive his check (the checks were generally mailed to a rooming house in Pasco where Tousin resided). The mail was normally left on a window ledge in the hallway of the rooming house. Appellant resided at the same place. Tousin's February check for $28.90 was endorsed and cashed at Sherman's Food Store in Pasco by someone other than the payee, Tousin.
An employee of the store, Caroline Pentecost, testified that, although she could not specifically recall the above-mentioned transaction, the initials appearing on the face of the check were hers. She also testified that whenever a check was presented to her for payment at the store, the store manager had instructed her to initial it and then insert it into a 'Regiscope' machine. This machine is designed to simultaneously photograph, through two separate lenses, both the check and the person facing the machine.
When it was discovered that the endorsement of the payee was a forgery, the Regiscope film of the transaction was sent to the Regiscope distributor in Portland to be developed. The processed film shows both the check and the person of appellant (from his waist up) with the food store in the background. Upon the trial, both the negative and the print therefrom were admitted in evidence, over appellant's objection.
This appeal presents two questions for our consideration:
(1) Were the Regiscope films (the negative and the print) authenticated sufficiently to warrant their admission into evidence?
(2) Did Phillip Dale, the Regiscope distributor, qualify as an expert witness with respect to the filming process despite the fact that he was not a photographer by profession?
At the outset, with respect to the question of the admissibility of the Regiscope films, it should be noted that this court has for many years encouraged the admission and use of demonstrative evidence, including photographs. See Kelly v. City of Spokane, 1914, 83 Wash. 55, 145 P. 57; Norland v. Peterson, 1932, 169 Wash. 380, 13 P.2d 483; Cady v. Department of Labor and Industries, 1945, 23 Wash.2d 851, 162 P.2d 813. There is equally well-established precedent for the proposition that the admission or rejection of photographs as evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Quayle v. Knox, 1933, 175 Wash. 182, 27 P.2d 115; State v. Hardamon, 1947, 29 Wash.2d 182, 186 P.2d 634; State v. Little, Wash. 1961, 358 P.2d 120. We have also held that the trial court's discretion extends to the sufficiency of identification. See Kellerher v. Porter, 1948, 29 Wash.2d 650, 189 P.2d 223, and the cases cited therein.
What quantum of authentication do courts require before a photograph may be admissible in evidence? It is simply this--that some witness (not necessarily the photographer) be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and that the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated. See 9 A.L.R.2d 899. The photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury. See Hassam v. J. E. Safford Lumber Co. and Safford, 1909, 82 Vt. 444, 74 A. 197; Blake v. Harding, 1919, 54 Utah 158, 180 P. 172.
Witness Pentecost testified that she recognized the background shown in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. J-R Distributors, Inc.
...as an expert is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Nelson, 72 Wash.2d 269, 432 P.2d 857 (1967); State v. Tatum, 58 Wash.2d 73, 360 P.2d 754 (1961). Clearly the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Finally, as pointed out in Kaplan v. California,--- 2. Error is ass......
-
Harpole v. Paeschke Farms, Inc.
...305 (1940); and Meadows & Walker Drilling Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 417 F.2d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 1969). See also State v. Tatum, 58 Wash.2d 73, 360 P.2d 754, 756 (1961). Cf. State v. Gibbons, 228 Or. 238, 243, 364 P.2d 611 (1961); Jones v. Sinsheimer, 107 Or. 491, 498, 214 P. 375 (1923)......
-
Bergner v. State
...407 P.2d 34; Sisk v. State, (1964) 236 Md. 589, 204 A.2d 684 (expressly adopting silent witness theory for first time); State v. Tatum, (1961) 58 Wash.2d 73, 360 P.2d 754. The silent witness theory has also been adopted in cases involving bank robbery photographs. These are photographs take......
-
State v. Harris
...court, and any claimed deficiency in her testimony would affect the weight of such testimony, not its admissibility. State v. Tatum, 58 Wash.2d 73, 360 P.2d 754 (1961); State v. Parker, 9 Wash.App. 970, 515 P.2d 1307 a continuance ought to have been granted. See State v. Mays, 65 Wash.2d 58......
-
A Practitioner's Guide to the Management and Use of Expert Witnesses in Washington Civil Litigation
...that the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether expert testimony should be admitted. State v. Tatum, 58 Wash. 2d 73, 360 P.2d 754 (1961). A trial court will not be reversed unless it has abused that discretion in ruling upon the competency of a purported expert or in admittin......