State v. White
| Decision Date | 14 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42181,42181 |
| Citation | 81 Wn.2d 223,500 P.2d 1242 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Clinton WHITE, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Christopher T. Bayley, John E. Oswald, Seattle, for appellant.
Miller, Howell & Watson, John M. Watson, Seattle, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of bribery. The Court of Appeals reversed. Williams, J., dissented. 5 Wash.App. 283, 487 P.2d 243 (1971). The state came here by appeal, under RCW 2.06.030. The sole issue is whether defendant is entitled to a new trial because of alleged incompetency of trial counsel. We reinstate the judgment of the trial court and reverse the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Defendant resided at 1212 South Main Street in Seattle. Police officers were observing the house on the 25th day of April, 1969, investigating possible prostitution therein. Defendant claims he found the officers looking in a window, and that the officers told him to have some money for them. The state contends defendant saw the officers parked across the street watching the premises and motioned for them to approach the house. According to the state, the defendant invited the officers in, showed them around, and suggested that there was money available for them.
At the trial, defendant was represented by Mr. Howard T. Manion of Seattle, an experienced trial lawyer. Defendant was charged with a violation of RCW 9.18.010, the pertinent parts of which read:
Bribery of public officer. Every person who shall give, offer or promise, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward to any executive or administrative officer of the state, with Intent to influence him with respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion or other proceeding, as such officer; . . . or who shall give, offer or promise, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward to a person executing any of the functions of a public officer other than as hereinbefore specified, with intent to influence him with respect to any act, decision, vote or other proceeding in the exercise of his powers or functions, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state pentientiary for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
(Emphasis supplied.)
A city policy officer is a public officer within the meaning of this section. State v. Nick, 66 Wash. 134, 119 P. 15 (1911); State v. Austin, 65 Wash.2d 916, 400 P.2d 603 (1965).
Intent is an essential element of the crime charged. Mr. Manion based the defense on lack of intent. Defendant contended in the Court of Appeals, and here, that the defense should have been entrapment.
' Effective assistance of counsel' does not mean 'successful assistance of counsel'. The competency of counsel is not measured by the result. State v. Thomas, 71 Wash.2d 470, 429 P.2d 231 (1967). In Thomas, we said:
As we observed in State v. Roberts, Supra, (69 Wn.2d 921, 421 P.2d 1014 (1966)) the method and manner of preparing and presenting a case will vary with different counsel. The effectiveness or the competence of counsel cannot be measured by the result obtained.
In Mooney v. United States, 320 F.Supp. 316, 317, E.D.Missouri, E.D., (1970), it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...then such conduct is not considered ineffective. See, State v. White, 5 Wash.App. 283, 487 P.2d 243 (1971), reversed, 81 Wash.2d 223, 500 P.2d 1242 (1972); United States v. Garguilo, 324 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1963); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965); In re Ernst, 294 F.2d 556 (3d C......
-
State v. Mak
...v. Bradbury, 38 Wash.App. 367, 370, 685 P.2d 623 (1984).92 State v. Adams, 91 Wash.2d 86, 90, 586 P.2d 1168 (1978); State v. White, 81 Wash.2d 223, 225, 500 P.2d 1242 (1972).93 State v. Jury, 19 Wash.App. 256, 262-63, 576 P.2d 1302 (1978). See Strickland v. Washington, --- U.S. ---, ---, 10......
-
State v. Dow
...are not guaranteed “ ‘successful assistance of counsel.’ ” Adams, 91 Wash.2d at 90, 586 P.2d 1168 (quoting State v. White, 81 Wash.2d 223, 225, 500 P.2d 1242 (1972)); see also Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369–70, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) (discussing that every counsel er......
-
In re Det. of Hatfield
...determined based upon the entire record below." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (citing State v. White, 81 Wash.2d 223, 225, 500 P.2d 1242 (1972) ). ¶ 61 "Scrutiny of counsel's trial tactics is deferential, and if they can be characterized as legitimate, then such tactics 191 W......