State v. Boone

Citations

• 65 Wash. 331
• 118 P. 46
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 924

Syllabus

<p>Embezzlement — Information — Continuous Offense — Criminal Law — Bill of Particulars — Effect. An information charging embezzlement of $22,000 on (livers dates and days continuously from June 20th, 1908 to February 1st, 1909, charges but one offense, although by a bill of particulars furnished on demand three acts of “embezzlement” are specified as occurring on September 25, January 5, and January 8; since the bill of particulars is no part of the information.</p> <p>Embezzlement — Continuous Offenses — Trial — Election Between Offenses. Upon such a charge, it is not error to refuse to require the state to elect between the acts specified in the bill of particulars, where it appears that many closely related but separate transactions were involved, all culminating in the final condition of the bank whereby it held worthless securities ■ as an asset of $22,000, all as a result of defendant’s continuous acts with reference to his fraudulent stock subscription and its payment.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial — Misconduct of Attorney — Appeal — Harmless Error. The statement of the prosecuting attorney in his opening to the jury, on a trial for embezzlement of $22,000, that he expected to prove the embezzlement of $153.33 and other similar embezzlements not covered by the indictment, and the refusal of the court to sustain exception thereto or withdraw the same, is not prejudicial error requiring a new trial, where no evidence thereof was offered at the trial.</p>