Skip to main content

State v. Morris

Citations

  • 109 Wash. 490
  • 187 P. 350
  • 1920 Wash. LEXIS 934

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Daw (111)—Evidence—Other Offenses—Intent. In a prosecution of a bank officer for embezzlement of a special deposit, upon an issue as to whether he was authorized to use the funds for a time for his own purposes, testimony that he had previously used part of the same fund without authority is admissible to throw light on his intentions, and is not objectionable as evidence of other crimes. .</p> <p>Witnesses (126-1)—Impeachment—Collateral Issues. In a prosecution of a bank officer for embezzlement of a special deposit received from an executor, the executor’s account filed in court is inadmissible to impeach the executor’s testimony that defendant had requested him to transfer the fund to his personal checking account, as it introduced a matter foreign to the issue.</p> <p>Criminal Law (143)—Evidence—Certified Copies — Admissibility. In a prosecution of a bank officer for embezzlement of a special deposit part of which was used to pay a judgment against a member of defendant’s firm, certified copies of the pleadings in that case are admissible for the purpose of showing that the judgment was against such partner and not against the bank.</p> <p>Same (102, 135)—Evidence—Res Gestae—Self-Serving Declarations. In a prosecution of a bank officer for embezzlement of a special deposit, which he claimed he was authorized to use for his own purposes for a time, self-serving declarations to that effect, claimed to have been made by him to a third person immediately after receiving the deposit, are inadmissible as part of the res gestae, as it was merely a reference to a past transaction.</p> <p>Embezzlement (14)-—Evidence—Admissibility. In a prosecution of a bank officer for the embezzlement of a special deposit which he had collected on a draft from another bank and later obtained on a cashier’s check of his bank, the state of the account between the two banks at the date of a subsequent failure is properly excluded as immaterial.</p> <p>Same (20)—Banks and Bankin

Judges: Mitchell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.