State v. Dilley

Citations

• 44 Wash. 207
• 87 P. 133
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 814

Syllabus

<p>Indictment and Information — Furnishing Copy. Error cannot be predicated upon failure to furnish the defendants with a copy of the information, after plea thereto and announcement that they were ready for trial, without any demand therefor or objection to the trial.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Robbery—Evidence of Conspiracy. Upon a joint prosecution for robbery under claim that a conspiracy existed between defendant D. and the other defendants, conversations between D. and the prosecuting witness, had while the other defendants were not present, are properly admitted in evidence against D., and against the others if further evidence should show concerted action between them.</p> <p>Same — Evidence of Concerted Action — Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence of concerted action on the part of defendants, jointly prosecuted for robbery, to admit evidence of conversations had with one of the defendants while the others were not present, where it appears that hy such conversations the prosecuting witness was lured to the home of the defendants where he was attacked and rohbed by all of the defendants actively participating therein.</p> <p>Same — Letters—Admissibility. In such a case, a letter written by one of the conspirators suggesting the line of evidence to he used by the two other defendants on the defense of the writer, which letter fell from her room, is sufficiently identified from its contents without proof of the handwriting or signature, and it is admissible against the other defendants in case attempted correspondence was going on between them at the time, and the other defendants were concerned in the offense, although the letter alone was not sufficient evidence of the conspiracy.</p> <p>Same — Evidence oe Conspiracy. In such a case there is sufficient prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to necessitate the submission of the question to the jury.</p>