State v. Tribett

Decision Date13 June 1913
Citation74 Wash. 125,132 P. 875
PartiesSTATE v. TRIBETT.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

J. T Tribett was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

Geo. H Rummens, Walter S. Fulton, and R. L. Blewett, all of Seattle, for appellant.

John F. Murphy and H. B. Butler, both of Seattle, for the State.

GOSE J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree for shooting and killing one Oliver Sanford, and sentenced to serve a term of from 10 years to life in the state penitentiary. At the time of the homicide the appellant was in the employ of the Puget Sound Traction Light & Power Company as a street car conductor in the city of Seattle. He had been so employed for about two years. The killing occurred on the rear platform of the car, a 'pay-as-you-enter' car, at the end of the 'Ballard Beach line,' between 9:30 and 10 o'clock in the nighttime on the 31st day of August, 1912. The appellant had then been a conductor on that line for about four months. This line extends from the business part of the city through and to the limits of what was formerly the city of Ballard. In the course of the outward trip, Otis Sanford a son of the deceased, charged the appellant with passing people who desired to take the car. The appellant testified that he answered that he did not see them; that the young man replied that he ought to be reported; that he in turn said, 'Here is my number; report me;' that the young man answered, 'No; I rather beat your head off;' that he then turned away; that soon thereafter the young man said, 'If you ever do me that way, I will pull you off this car and beat your head off;' that he said, 'All right,' and again turned; that the young man then said, 'I will go to the end of the line right now with you and pull you off this car and beat your head off;' that he replied, 'All right;' that the young man was then leaning against the post at the entrance gate; that when the car reached Thirty-Second Avenue N.W. and Fifty-Ninth street the deceased came out of the car and said to his son, 'Ain't you going to get off here?' that the son answered, 'No; I am going to the end of the line to get this fellow,' indicating the appellant; that the appellant then opened the gates and several passengers alighted; that the deceased and his son then stood on the rear platform near the appellant, whispering to each other; that he heard the deceased say to the son, 'All right, we will go to the end of the line and get him;' that when the car reached the end of the line the appellant called, 'This is the end of the line;' that he then said to the young man, 'End of the line; going off?' that all the passengers then left the car except the deceased and his son, and that after waiting 15 or 20 seconds he signaled for the car to proceed; that it then passed onto the Y in order to turn for the return trip to the city; that while upon the Y the deceased and his son advanced simultaneously toward him in a threatening manner, deceased with an uplifted bottle in his hand; that the young man drew back his coat as he came toward him, 'I thought he was going for a gun;' that he--the appellant--jumped backward, drew his pistol from the inside coat pocket, fired two shots in rapid succession, first at the young man and then at the deceased, while they were both advancing upon him. The young man fell dead upon the rear platform of the car at the entrance gate, and the deceased stepped off and to the rear of the car, where he sat down or lay down, and shortly expired. The appellant further testified that passengers were not allowed to ride upon the Y. The motorman testified that immediately after the tragedy the appellant said, 'They came out here to beat me up,' and when they attacked him he shot them. Other witnesses gave similar testimony. Another witness, a passenger upon the car, testified that he heard the young man say to the appellant, 'We will get even with you.' Roy Sanford, a son of Oliver and a brother of Otis, a witness for the state, testified that he had an engagement for a launch ride with his father, mother, brother, and the rest of the family 'just as soon as I could get there'; that his launch was at 'Carlson's boathouse,' near where the canal locks were being constructed; that he was working at a store at Queen Anne and Mercer streets in the city; that he left the store about 9:30 on the evening of the tragedy, and went direct to Ballard to meet his engagement, and that he heard of the tragedy when he had arrived at the boathouse. He further testified that there were two ways of going to the boathouse, one from Thirty-Second Avenue N.W. and Fifty-Ninth street, the other from the end of the line, and that his father and brother were more familiar with that vicinity than he was. There was other testimony tending to show that the shortest route to the boathouse was from Thirty-Second avenue and Fifty-Ninth street. The appellant then sought to prove by a motorman who had worked one year on the Ballard Beach line the place where people usually left the car to go to the canal locks. Upon the objection of the state's attorney this line of evidence was rejected, and the appellant's counsel was warned by the court to pursue the inquiry no further as the evidence was not competent. The exclusion of this evidence is assigned as error. This witness was then asked to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Wanrow
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1977
    ...This court found these instructions 'clear, apt, and comprehensive' and free from error. Churchill at 225, 100 P. 309. State v. Tribett, 74 Wash. 125, 132 P. 875 (1913), is in accord. There this court approved an instruction which twice directed the jury to evaluate the reasonableness of th......
  • State v. Upton, 1726--II
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1976
    ...for his belief. State v. Tyree, 143 Wash. 313, 255 P. 382 (1927); State v. Rader, 118 Wash. 198, 203 P. 68 (1922); State v. Tribett, 74 Wash. 125, 132 P. 875 (1913). Proof that a victim had a reputation for violence known to the defendant Or that a defendant knew of a non-remote specific ac......
  • State v. Janes
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1993
    ...safely say what a reasonably prudent [person] similarly situated would have done. (Plurality of Utter, J.) (quoting State v. Tribett, 74 Wash. 125, 130, 132 P. 875 (1913)). The trial court must evaluate the evidence from this same point of view if it is to properly determine whether the def......
  • State v. Smith, 220--40543--I
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 1970
    ...jury in deciding the issue of what the defender as 'a reasonably prudent man similarly situated would have done. * * *' State v. Tribett, 74 Wash. 125, 132 P. 875 (1913). Appellant did not offer to prove that the deceased was a member of a group which he knew was violent, or turbulent, or p......
  • 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