State v. Pierce

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Pierce

194 P. 546, 113 Wash. 694, 1921 Wash. LEXIS 537

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 7, 1921

DocketNo. 16110

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 P. 546 (State v. Pierce) 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. Pierce, 194 P. 546, 113 Wash. 694, 1921 Wash. LEXIS 537 (Wash. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

The defendant, Pierce, was charged and, upon a trial in a justice court of Grant county, adjudged guilty of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell the same. He appealed therefrom to the superior court of that county wherein, upon a trial before the court and a jury, he was again found guilty, and a judgment ren[695]*695dered against him accordingly, from which he has appealed to this court.

Practically the whole of the argument made in the brief of counsel for appellant is devoted to their claim of error of the superior court in denying his motion for a new trial upon the ground of “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. ” It is not here claimed in appellant’s behalf-that he was entitled to judgment of dismissal as a matter of law, or to an instructed verdict of not guilty. The controverted question of fact, which counsel on both sides seem to regard as the controlling and only question of fact to be here considered, is as to whether appellant was in Grant county at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. Two witnesses testified that they saw appellant at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. Nine other witnesses testified that appellant was, at that time, in Spokane, some one hundred and forty miles distant from the place of the alleged commission of the offense. It is conceded that appellant’s automobile, with the liquor and appellant’s coat and gloves in it, was found at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. It seems quite clear to us that we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, in so far as it is rested upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. Other claims of error seem to us so wholly without merit as to not call for further discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Holcomb, C. J., Fullerton, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., concur.

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

Parker, J.

The defendant, Pierce, was charged and, upon a trial in a justice court of Grant county, adjudged guilty of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell the same. He appealed therefrom to the superior court of that county wherein, upon a trial before the court and a jury, he was again found guilty, and a judgment ren[695]*695dered against him accordingly, from which he has appealed to this court.

Practically the whole of the argument made in the brief of counsel for appellant is devoted to their claim of error of the superior court in denying his motion for a new trial upon the ground of “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. ” It is not here claimed in appellant’s behalf-that he was entitled to judgment of dismissal as a matter of law, or to an instructed verdict of not guilty. The controverted question of fact, which counsel on both sides seem to regard as the controlling and only question of fact to be here considered, is as to whether appellant was in Grant county at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. Two witnesses testified that they saw appellant at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. Nine other witnesses testified that appellant was, at that time, in Spokane, some one hundred and forty miles distant from the place of the alleged commission of the offense. It is conceded that appellant’s automobile, with the liquor and appellant’s coat and gloves in it, was found at the time and place of the alleged commission of the offense. It seems quite clear to us that we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, in so far as it is rested upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. Other claims of error seem to us so wholly without merit as to not call for further discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Holcomb, C. J., Fullerton, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 P. 546, 113 Wash. 694, 1921 Wash. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pierce-wash-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack