State v. Webb
| Decision Date | 19 January 1899 |
| Citation | 55 P. 935,20 Wash. 500 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEBB. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Stevens county; C. H. Neal, Judge.
William Webb was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Stayt & Rochford, for appellant.
H. G Kirkpatrick, Pros. Atty., for the State.
Appellant was charged by information with robbery, and, by a jury found guilty as charged. Only the testimony of the prosecuting witness has been brought here in the statement of facts, although it is stated that a number of other witnesses testified upon the trial. It may be proper to observe that the presumption on the record is that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict, and, there being no objection to the evidence introduced, there can be no error predicated upon the nature of the evidence or its sufficiency. The assignments of error relating to the instructions given by the superior court have been carefully examined, and the instructions, taken together, fairly stated the law of the case as founded upon the evidence brought here. And so with the refusal of the instructions tendered by the defendant. They were nearly all covered by the instructions framed by the court.
Appellant also assigns error in the refusal to grant the motion for a new trial. The court was fully justified in disregarding the affidavit of McDonald as to statements made by two of the jurors, showing misconduct on the part of the jury. A stipulation shows that it was contradicted by the members of the jury. Neither will the discretion of the superior court be disturbed in its refusal to grant a new trial on newly-discovered evidence as shown by the affidavits filed by defendant, as those were met by counter affidavits.
We do not think a case of surprise, because the evidence was not the same at the trial as it was at the preliminary examination, is made out. It appears that the same witnesses who testified at the preliminary examination were present and testified at the trial of the case, and that the justice of the peace before whom the preliminary examination was held was present also, and that one of the counsel for defendant, who was present at the preliminary examination was also present at the trial of the cause.
Defendant also urges that the information charges the defendant with the crime of robbery as a principal, and that the evidence of the prosecuting witness shows that the defendant could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cray
...14, 70 N.W. 795, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 183; State v. Baughman, 111 Iowa 71, 82 N.W. 452; State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51, 44 P. 411; State v. Webb, 20 Wash. 500, 55 P. 935. We satisfied that this court cannot say either that the trial court abused its discretion, or that it erred in finding that the ju......
-
State v. Cray
...W. Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 14, 70 N. W. 795;State v. Baughman, 111 Iowa, 71, 82 N. W. 452;State v. Gay, 18 Mont. 51, 44 Pac. 411;State v. Webb, 20 Wash. 500, 55 Pac. 935. We are satisfied that this court cannot say either that the trial court abused its discretion or that it erred in finding that......
-
State v. Goesser
...the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Gifford, supra, 'had been virtually reversed by the more recent case of State v. Webb , 55 P. 935'. State v. Gifford has not been reversed by the Washington court, but in some cases it has been discussed and distinguished. State v. Co......
-
Olson v. Seldovia Salmon Co.
...the trial court regarded it, as a whole, not likely to change the result upon a new trial. We agree with such conclusion. State v. Webb, 20 Wash. 500, 55 P. 935; Thayer v. Spokane County, 36 Wash. 63, 78 P. Knapp v. Chehalis, 65 Wash. 350, 118 P. 211. The judgment is affirmed. HOLCOMB, MOUN......