State v. Druxinman

Citations

• 34 Wash. 257
• 75 P. 814
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 345

Syllabus

<p>Receiving Stolen Property — Information—Sufficiency. An information charging that the defendent bought and received “stolen property,” knowing that it was stolen property, is sufficient without further alleging as a fact that it was stolen since the inference that it was stolen is in substance the statement of a fact, and the information enables a person of common understanding to know what was intended.</p> <p>Trial — Verdict on Conflicting Evidence Not Set Aside. A verdict of guilty will not be set aside upon conflicting testimony where the evidence for the state warrants the verdict.</p> <p>Trial — Order of Proof — Admission of Evidence in Rebuttal— Discretion of Court. The order of proof is largely in the discretion of the trial court, and unless injustice has been done, a case will not be reversed for the admission of evidence in rebuttal which might have been presented on the state’s case in chief.</p> <p>Receiving Stolen Property — Knowledge that Same was Stolen — Instructions. Upon a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, it is proper to instruct that defendant’s knowledge of thr theft need not be direct, and that it is sufficient if the circumstances were such as to make the defendant believe that they were stolen.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Weight of the Evidence of Each Witness. It is not error in instructing that it is the duty of the jury to give proper weight to the testimony of each witness to fail to give any definition of the meaning of proper weight.</p> <p>Jury — Misconduct—New Trial — Improper Remark not Influencing the Verdict. The fact that a juror stated in the jury room that the defendant had been tried several times on similar charges is not ground for a new trial on account of the improper conduct of a juror, where it does not appear that the remark had any influence upon the verdict.</p>