State v. Walls
Opinion
Defendant, Kenneth Wayne Walls, appeals his conviction for grand larceny, i.e., obtaining goods [35] and merchandise by means of false and fraudulent representation.
The record shows defendant accumulated charges in the amount of $219.99 at a restaurant associated with the Royal Motor Inn in Walla Walla, Washington. He presented a BankAmericard belonging to John J. Keenan to cover the charges and represented that he had authority to sign the draft1 on Keenan’s behalf. The draft was subsequently returned by the National Bank of Commerce unpaid.
The factual determination upon which the verdict rested was whether defendant had Keenan’s permission to use the card. The jury resolved that question in favor of the state.
Defendant contends an individual cannot be convicted of a felony for obtaining goods and merchandise from a restaurant by false and fraudulent representation under ROW 9.54.010 (2)2 because ROW 9.45.0403 and RCW 19.48.1104
[36] specifically make defrauding an innkeeper a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor respectively. We agree.
One cannot be guilty of larceny under RCW 9.54.010(2) for procuring meals by fraud from a restaurant or hotel since that crime comes exclusively within RCW 9.45.040. Both RCW 9.54.010(2) and RCW 9.45.040, although having earlier origins, were a part of the Laws of 1909, ch. [37]*37249, the first comprehensive criminal code passed by the legislature. As such, the two sections should be construed so as to produce a harmonious whole. Markham Advertising Co. v. State, 73 Wn.2d 405, 439 P.2d 248 (1968); 2 J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4073 at 336 (3d ed. P. Horack 1943). The legislature established a special criminal category for the procurement of food, accommodations or lodgings by fraud from the class of businesses set forth in RCW 9.45.040 as opposed to the procurement of food or merchandise from any other type of business under RCW 9.54.010(2). Whether or not the reasoning underlying this segregation of such businesses in 1909 presently exists, is a determination which must be made by the legislature. We therefore find defendant was improperly charged and his conviction must be reversed.
Inasmuch as a new trial may be forthcoming, we comment summarily upon other alleged errors, namely: (a.) The trial court did not err in refusing to admit evidence concerning defendant’s payment of the charges incurred. See State v. Nicely, 171 Wash. 439, 18 P.2d 503 (1933). (b) The admission of evidence of similar transactions wherein defendant secured merchandise by the use of the credit card was proper within the guidelines of State v. Scherer, 77 Wn.2d 345, 462 P.2d 549 (1969).
The judgment and sentence are reversed and the case is dismissed.
Green and Evans, JJ., concur.
Petition for rehearing denied January 31, 1972.
Review granted by Supreme Court March 7, 1972.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
492 P.2d 236 (State v. Walls) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.