State v. Brown
This text of 475 P.2d 318 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A King County jury found Alton Evans Brown guilty of grand larceny. He appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold the verdict.1 His challenge primarily focuses upon the testimony identifying him as the person who committed the crime. The defendant’s sole argument is that the identification testimony contained-inconsistencies and was inadequate to support the verdict. This question of the adequacy of identification testimony was fully considered in State v. Woody, 73 Wn.2d 179, 437 P.2d 167 (1968), and is determinative of the issue here. [382]*382■We have carefully examined the record and find ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
Secondly, defendant claims that this was a circumstantial evidence case requiring the state to connect the accused with the crime by evidence excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt. Even though disputed, direct testimony was presented identifying the defendant as the person who committed the crime. There is no merit in defendant’s contention.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
475 P.2d 318, 3 Wash. App. 381, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-washctapp-1970.