State v. Taylor, 27158.

Decision Date10 August 1938
Docket Number27158.
Citation196 Wash. 37,81 P.2d 853
PartiesSTATE v. TAYLOR.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clark County; Charles W. Hall, Judge.

Cecil V. Taylor was convicted of negligent homicide by means of a motor vehicle, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Wm. P Lord, of Portland, Or., and Dale McMullen, of Vancouver, for appellant.

Eugene G. Cushing and R. DeWitt Jones, both of Vancouver, for the State.

MAIN Justice.

In the amended information upon which the defendant was tried, there are four counts, separately stated. In each, the defendant was charged with 'negligent homicide by means of a motor vehicle,' as that crime is defined in section 120 of chapter 189 of the Laws of 1937, page 911. At the conclusion of the evidence offered upon the trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which motion was denied. The case was submitted to the jury and he was found guilty on each of the four counts. The motion for a new trial being overruled, the appeal is from the judgment and sentence.

The facts will only be stated to the extent that it is necessary to present the questions here for determination.

The accident which gave rise to the prosecution happened on the Evergreen highway, in Clark county, about seven or eight miles east of the city of Vancouver. This highway is paved and extends east and west. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Lewis were traveling east on the highway in a Ford coach. The appellant Cecil V. Taylor, and Thomas F. Black and Clifford Beelor were traveling west in a Dodge sedan owned by Taylor, the appellant. As the cars approached each other, as stated in the appellant's brief, '* * * the [Dodge] automobile was driven from the north side of the pavement over onto the south half of the pavement and into the Lewis automobile. * * * '

As a result of the collision, Mr. Lewis, Black, and Beeler were killed almost instantly, and Mrs. Lewis died in the hospital the following day. The appellant was rendered unconscious and was taken in an ambulance to a hospital in the city of Vancouver. In the ambulance, one George E. Caine sat beside him. While on the way to the hospital appellant began to regain consciousness, and, as he did so, began to talk. He repeatedly asked Caine if he was a policeman and received the answer that he was not. In response to a direct question from Caine as to whether he was driving the Dodge car, he answered that he was not. He also stated that his car was not in the accident and that he was not there.

Not having been seriously injured, the appellant was discharged from the hospital the following morning and was taken to the county jail. Sometime during the forenoon of that day, Victor C. Gault, who was manager of the paper company by which Mr Lewis was employed, went to the jail to see the appellant with reference to whether there was any insurance upon the Dodge car which could be made available for the benefit of the children of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. In the sheriff's office, Gault met the deputy prosecuting attorney, not by prearrangement, but incidentally. The latter had gone to the jail to make inquiry from the appellant with reference to the accident. They entered the room in which the appellant was seated at a table, which room was adjacent to the sheriff's office. Gault made inquiry as to the insurance, stating that he was representing the Lewis children, and a number of questions were asked by either Gault or the deputy prosecuting attorney as to the condition of the car and how the accident happened. In the course of the conversation, Gault said to the appellant: 'Boy, you must have been going some, and he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State Dept. of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1986
  • State v. Leach
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1989
    ...See Seattle v. Jackson, 70 Wash.2d 733, 425 P.2d 385 (1967) (defendant waived objection to unauthorized signature); State v. Taylor, 196 Wash. 37, 81 P.2d 853 (1938) (contention that amended information invalid because not sworn to cannot be raised for the first time on Although the superio......
  • State v. Hurd
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1940
    ... ... Hammond v. State, 3 ... Wash. 171, 28 P. 334; State v. Stone, 66 Wash. 625, ... 120 P. 76; State v. Taylor, 196 Wash. 37, 81 P.2d ... 853 ... Those ... cases are also authority for the proposition that ... verification may ... ...
  • State v. Karsunky
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1938
    ... ... State v ... Randall, 107 Wash. 695, 182 P. 575, State v ... McKenzie, 184 Wash. 32, 49 P.2d 1115, and State v ... Taylor, Wash., 81 P.2d 853 ... The ... contention that count two is defective, in that it fails to ... allege that appellant ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT