State v. Walters
| Decision Date | 14 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35155,35155 |
| Citation | 351 P.2d 147,56 Wn.2d 79 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Charles W. WALTERS, Defendant, Robert hutton Davis, Respondent. |
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Gustav G. Kostakos, Deputy, Seattle, for appellant.
No attorney for defendant or respondent.
This is an appeal by the prosecution from an order of the trial court sustaining a defense challenge to the sufficiency of the state's evidence.
On November 13, 1958, Charles W. Walters and Robert Hutton Davis were charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree by an information which reads in part:
'They, the said Charles W. Walters and Robert Hutton Davis, and each of them, in the County of King, State of Washington, on or about the 27th day of September, 1958, with intent to commit a crime therein, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did break and enter a building, said building not owned or lawfully occupied by said defendants, known as the Queensborough Apartments, situated at 101 Olympic Place, in the City of Settle, said county and state, the same being a building wherein property was then and there kept for sale, use and or deposit; * * *'
Respondent, Robert Hutton Davis, entered a plea of not guilty. Charles W. Walters pleaded guilty to another criminal offense and was never brought to trial.
On March 16, 1959, the case came on for trial before the court sitting with a jury. At the close of the state's case, respondent moved the court to dismiss the information on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to submit the case to the jury. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court granted respondent's motion and dismissed the charge. The state has appealed.
Respondent has not filed a brief nor made any appearance in this court.
The sole error assigned is that the trial court erred in granting respondent's motion challenging the sufficiency of the state's evidence and dismissing the charge against respondent.
In granting respondent's motion, the trial court found, as a matter of law, that the state had failed to introduce sufficient evidence from which a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that respondent was guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.
RCW 9.19.020 provides:
'Every person who, with intent to commit some crime therein shall, under circumstances not amounting to burglary in the first degree, enter the dwelling house of another or break and enter, or, having committed a crime therein, shall break out of, any building or part thereof, or a room or other structure wherein any property is kept for use, sale or deposit, shall be guilty of burglary in the second degree and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than fifteen years.'
Having in mind this definition of the crime charged in the information, the question for our determination is whether the state introduced sufficient evidence from which a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that respondent did break and enter the Queensborough Apartments with the intent to commit a crime therein.
Of course the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the state. As we stated in State v. McDaniels, 1948, 30 Wash.2d 76, 190 P.2d 705, 712:
'A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence or a motion having that effect admits the truth of the evidence of the party against whom the challenge or motion is made and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from such evidence, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most strongly against the challenger or movant party and in the light most favorable to the opposing party. * * *.'
Viewing the evidence in accordance with the rule of the McDaniels case, supra, the following facts appear:
On the evening of September 26, 1958, at approximately 10:00 p. m., Mr. William Doak, the manager of the Queensborough Apartments, checked each of the nine entrances to the apartment house (as was his custom) and determined that they were in proper working order and were all locked. After 10:00 p. m., legitimate access to the building could be had only by the tenants, who possessed individual keys furnished to them by the apartment house manager. The doors to each of the nine entrances were of the type which automatically close and lock after each opening.
At approximately 9:00 p. m. on the same evening, detectives Vernon Thomas and William Panton, members of the Seattle police department who were employed by the building owner to maintain the security of the apartment house, arrived at the building. Their specific duty during the period between 9:00 p. m. and 5:00 a. m. the following morning was to periodically check the doors of the nine entrances to the building to see if they were locked and operating properly and to keep all unauthorized persons out of the building.
During the evening of September 26 and the early morning hours of September 27, the two detectives checked and tested each of the doors to the nine entrances of the building a minimum of three times, and each time they found the doors to be locked and operating properly. Their last check was at approximately 4:45 a. m.
At approximately 5:00 a. m., the two detectives discovered respondent and Mr. Walters in the fourth-floor hallway. Mr. Walters had his back to the detectives and was leaning with his left shoulder up against the door to apartment No. 407. Respondent was standing in the center of the hallway next to Mr. Walters with his body facing the detectives but with his head turned back over his shoulder watching Mr. Walters. The moment respondent observed the detectives in the hallway, he uttered something to Mr. Walters, who immediately stepped out into the hallway away from the door to apartment No. 407.
After identifying themselves, the two detectives asked Mr. Walters and respondent what they were doing there at that time of the morning. In response, Mr. Walters stated that they had come to the apartment house to visit his brother, Harold Walters, who lived somewhere on the fourth floor near the elevator; that he had just visited his brother there approximately a week before; and that they were checking the doors of the individual apartments for name plates.
The evidence shows that there were no name plates on any of the doors to the individual apartment units in the building, since the tenants were all listed by name and apartment number in a central directory located on the main floor.
When asked how they had acquired entrance to the building, Mr. Walters stated that they had come through the door at the southeast entrance and that the door was unlocked.
Respondent confirmed the answers given by Mr. Walters.
Detectives Panton and Thomas consulted their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ehrhardt
...874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004)). The lack of direct evidence alone does not warrant reversal of Ehrhardt's conviction. See State v. Walters, 56 Wash.2d 79, 85, 351 P.2d 147 (1960) (lack of direct evidence not fatal to State's burglary case). Moreover, under Mace, the evidence is sufficient to show......
-
State v. Douglas
...Siemion, 54 Wash.2d 17, 337 P.2d 715 (1959); State v. Lewis, 55 Wash.2d 665, 349 P.2d 438 (1960) (jury so instructed); State v. Walters, 56 Wash.2d 79, 351 P.2d 147 (1960); State v. James, 58 Wash.2d 383, 363 P.2d 116 (1961) (tried to court; same test applied); State v. Courville, 63 Wash.2......
-
State v. Cerny
...doubt every reasonable hypothesis other than the defendant's guilt, is a question for the trier of fact. * * * See State v. Walters, 1960, (56 Wash.2d 79,) 351 P.2d 147; State v. Lewis, 1960, 55 Wash.2d 665, 349 P.2d 438; State v. Grenz, 1946, 26 Wash.2d 764, 175 P.2d 633, appeal dismissed ......
-
State v. James
...hypothesis other than the defendant's guilt, is a question for the trier of fact (in this case the trial court). See State v. Walters, 1960, 351 P.2d 147; State v. Lewis, 1960, 55 Wash.2d 665, 349 P.2d 438; State v. Grenz, 1946, 26 Wash.2d 764, 175 P.2d 633, appeal dismissed 332 U.S. 748, 6......