State v. Wickstrom
Decision Date | 16 August 1916 |
Docket Number | 13308. |
Citation | 159 P. 753,92 Wash. 503 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. WICKSTROM. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Ernest M. Card Judge.
Jack Wickstrom was convicted of assault in the third degree, his motion for a new trial was overruled, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Frank G. Riley, of Tacoma, for appellant.
Fred G Remann and James Selden, both of Tacoma, for the State.
The defendant was charged by information with the crime of assault in the second degree. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of assault in the third degree. Motion for a new trial being made and overruled, a judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the defendant was given a jail sentence. From this judgment and sentence the appeal is prosecuted.
The facts are these: On June 30, 1915, the appellant was charged in the justice court with an assault in the third degree. On the same day a warrant was issued and the arrest made. The date set for the hearing was July 8, 1915. For his appearance on July 8th, the defendant deposited $10 cash bail. On July 6, 1915, an information, charging the defendant with assault in the second degree, was filed in the superior court. After this information had been filed, the appellant was arrested and gave bond for his appearance in the superior court. When the case in the justice court was called on July 8th, as appears from the docket entry, the cause was dismissed on motion of the state because an information had been filed in the superior court. In response to that information the appellant pleaded not guilty, and that the dismissal of the action in the justice court was a bar to any further prosecution.
This section further provides that the prosecuting attorney cannot discontinue or abandon a prosecution except as provided therein.
In State v. Hansen, 10 Wash. 235, 38 P. 1023, construing a statute in like language with that just quoted, it was held that the purpose of the statute applies to those cases where the action is dismissed in the furtherance of justice, as the statute expresses it, without any intention to renew it in some other form. It was there said:
By the terms of this statute if a person is charged with a misdemeanor, and the same is dismissed, it bars another prosecution for the same misdemeanor; or if one is charged with a gross misdemeanor and the case is dismissed, it bars another prosecution for the same gross misdemeanor; but in no other case, as the statute says, shall such order of dismissal bar another prosecution. Under the facts in this case the appellant was charged in the justice court with the crime of assault in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McCollum
... ... Northern Pac. R. Co., 32 Wash. 210, 73 P ... 380, questioned--overruled--by Deno v. Standard Furniture ... Co., 190 Wash. 1, 3, 66 P.2d 1158 ... State v. Durbin, 32 Wash. 289, 73 P. 373, ... questioned, as follows, by State v. Wickstrom, 92 ... Wash. 503, 506, 159 P. 753, 754: 'The case of State ... v. Durbin, 32 Wash. 289, 73 P. 373, is cited as ... sustaining the contention that the dismissal of the action in ... the justice court bars further prosecution, because it was ... there held that, ... ...
-
State v. Robinson
... ... not charge one with possession of intoxicating liquor, ... dismiss the charge and file another information for ... possession of the same liquor. This is the conclusion to ... which we came in State v. Wickstrom, 92 Wash. 503, ... 159 P. 753, where, speaking of the present statute, we ... said: ... "It ... bars a prosecution when the second prosecution is for the ... same misdemeanor [or gross misdemeanor] with which a ... defendant had been ... ...
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Washington Nat. Bank
... ... supplemental, to statute, are appropriate[92 Wash. 499] to a ... public contract. State ex rel. Bartelt v. Liebes, 19 ... Wash. 589, 595, 54 P. 26, and Pacific Bridge Co. v. U.S ... Fidelity Co., 33 Wash. 47, 55, 73 P. 772, ... ...
-
State v. Deloria
...Seright, 48 Wash. 307, 93 P. 521; State v. Burns, 54 Wash. 113, 102 P. 886; State v. Alexander, 65 Wash. 488, 118 P. 645; State v. Wickstrom, 92 Wash. 503, 159 P. 753. It true that not all of these cases directly discuss the question under consideration here, but they all either expressly h......