State v. Rodom

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Rodom

447 P.2d 603, 74 Wash. 2d 944, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 844

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 27, 1968

DocketNo. 39984

StatusPublished

This text of 447 P.2d 603 (State v. Rodom) 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. Rodom, 447 P.2d 603, 74 Wash. 2d 944, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 844 (Wash. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Barton Stanley Rodom, was convicted of first degree forgery by check. The state’s principal witness was his accomplice, Dale Masterman, who testified that the appellant wrote the check in question and accompanied Masterman to the store where the latter cashed the check. At the trial no instruction regarding the [945]*945weight to be given to the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was presented to the jury. The appellant, although represented by counsel, made no request for such instruction, but now predicates error on the trial court’s failure to submit, on its own motion, the cautionary instruction to the jury.

This court has held that the trial court is not obligated to give a cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of an accomplice when none has been requested. State v. Proctor, 71 Wn.2d 882, 885, 431 P.2d 703 (1967).

In accord with such view, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Barton Stanley Rodom, was convicted of first degree forgery by check. The state’s principal witness was his accomplice, Dale Masterman, who testified that the appellant wrote the check in question and accompanied Masterman to the store where the latter cashed the check. At the trial no instruction regarding the [945]*945weight to be given to the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice was presented to the jury. The appellant, although represented by counsel, made no request for such instruction, but now predicates error on the trial court’s failure to submit, on its own motion, the cautionary instruction to the jury.

This court has held that the trial court is not obligated to give a cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of an accomplice when none has been requested. State v. Proctor, 71 Wn.2d 882, 885, 431 P.2d 703 (1967).

In accord with such view, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 P.2d 603, 74 Wash. 2d 944, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodom-wash-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack