State v. Hatupin

Citations

• 99 Wash. 468
• 169 P. 966
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 655

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Intent—Evidence — Admissibility. On a trial for embezzlement of money collected for the prosecuting witness, who, in contemplation of a settlement, had made affidavit that she did not think defendant intended to defraud her, it is not error to allow her to explain the affidavit and statements therein.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Appeal—Harmless Error. It is not prejudicial error to permit evidence that the prosecuting witness had been sick and in bed a long time prior to the trial.</p> <p>Embezzlement—Evidence — Sufficiency — Degree of Offense. Upon a prosecution for embezzlement of $29 collected by defendant, where there was evidence that defendant was entitled to a fee of $5, and had converted but $24, a conviction of petit larceny is sustained.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Sentence—Excessive Punishment. A fine of $300 and imprisonment in the county jail for one year is not excessive punishment on conviction of embezzling $24; since it was clearly within the discretion of the trial court.</p>