State v. Cole

Citations

• 118 Wash. 511
• 203 P. 942
• 1922 Wash. LEXIS 657

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses (106) —Impeachment—Cross-Examination—Evidence oe Former Conviction. A defendant, prosecuted on a criminal charge, who testifies as a witness in his own behalf, may, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, be properly cross-examined as to his having been convicted of the unlawful sale of narcotics.</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors (51) — Offenses—Jointist—Presumptions From Possession — Instructions. In a prosecution .for being a jointist, an instruction on the presumption of possession from the finding of liquor on the premises of accused was not prejudicial because of the fact that others had access to the place, where the instruction was qualified by the statement that the presumption was rebuttable, and the jury were charged to determine from all the evidence whether defendant had been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.</p> <p>Same (31) — Offenses—Jointist. An actual sale of intoxicating liquor is not essential to the crime of being a jointist.</p> <p>Same (6) — Prohibition-—Unlawful Possession — Eighteenth Amendment. The eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act have not superseded the state laws making possession of intoxicating liquors unlawful.</p> <p>Criminal Law (9-1) — Merger of Offenses — State and City Laws. Where an accused was, by stipulation, tried at the same time on a charge of being a jointist and on a violation of a municipal ordinance making unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor a crime, the payment of a fine in one case would not entitle defendant to a dismissal after verdict on the other charge, since they were separate offenses.</p>