State v. Johnston

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Johnston

261 P. 388, 145 Wash. 638, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 949

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1927

DocketNo. 20682. Department One.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 P. 388 (State v. Johnston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Johnston, 261 P. 388, 145 Wash. 638, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 949 (Wash. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

French, J.

On June 12, 1926, two deputy sheriffs, having in their possession a search warrant, went to the premises of appellant Johnston, and being unable to arouse any of the occupants of the house, and finding the door unlocked, entered and found Johnston and Davis asleep. There was found in the room near the head of the bed a bottle of moonshine whiskey, and several practically empty bottles, each containing a few drops of moonshine whiskey. At the time of the *639 arrest, there was some difficulty in awakening the defendants, both deputies testifying that the defendants were intoxicated. They were charged with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Davis was found not guilty by the jury, and Johnston was found guilty, and appeals.

Complaint is made that the court erred in admitting in evidence the bottles seized. The record shows that they were sufficiently identified and there was no error in their admission.

Complaint is also made as to the failure of the court to give certain proposed instructions, hut the matters contained therein were amply covered by the court in other instructions that were actually given.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in defining “possession,” the part of the instruction complained of reading as follows:

“Actual possession exists when the property is in the individual occupancy of a party or his agent and is expressed frequently as ‘possession in fact’.”

This is a correct statement of the law. State v. Spillman, 110 Wash. 662, 188 Pac. 915; State v. Parent, 123 Wash. 624, 212 Pac. 1061.

As to the testimony relative to the defendants being intoxicated at the time of the arrest, we think this is admissible. State v. Thompson, 132 Wash. 124, 231 Pac. 461; State v. Harris, 135 Wash. 446, 237 Pac. 1005; 16 C. J., 574.

We find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.

Mackintosh, C. J., Parker, Mitchell, and Tolman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

French, J.

On June 12, 1926, two deputy sheriffs, having in their possession a search warrant, went to the premises of appellant Johnston, and being unable to arouse any of the occupants of the house, and finding the door unlocked, entered and found Johnston and Davis asleep. There was found in the room near the head of the bed a bottle of moonshine whiskey, and several practically empty bottles, each containing a few drops of moonshine whiskey. At the time of the *639 arrest, there was some difficulty in awakening the defendants, both deputies testifying that the defendants were intoxicated. They were charged with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Davis was found not guilty by the jury, and Johnston was found guilty, and appeals.

Complaint is made that the court erred in admitting in evidence the bottles seized. The record shows that they were sufficiently identified and there was no error in their admission.

Complaint is also made as to the failure of the court to give certain proposed instructions, hut the matters contained therein were amply covered by the court in other instructions that were actually given.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in defining “possession,” the part of the instruction complained of reading as follows:

“Actual possession exists when the property is in the individual occupancy of a party or his agent and is expressed frequently as ‘possession in fact’.”

This is a correct statement of the law. State v. Spillman, 110 Wash. 662, 188 Pac. 915; State v. Parent, 123 Wash. 624, 212 Pac. 1061.

As to the testimony relative to the defendants being intoxicated at the time of the arrest, we think this is admissible. State v. Thompson, 132 Wash. 124, 231 Pac. 461; State v. Harris, 135 Wash. 446, 237 Pac. 1005; 16 C. J., 574.

We find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.

Mackintosh, C. J., Parker, Mitchell, and Tolman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 P. 388, 145 Wash. 638, 1927 Wash. LEXIS 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnston-wash-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack