State v. Ray

Citations

• 62 Wash. 582
• 114 P. 439
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 748

Syllabus

<p>Indictment and Information — Sufficiency—Demurrer. The sufficiency of an information must be determined on demurrer by what appears on its face, and error in the admission of evidence thereafter does not affect its sufficiency.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Different Acts — Trial—Election—Receiving Stolen Goods. Under an information charging the larceny of fifty bushels of wheat during a certain month, and Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2601, making it larceny to knowingly buy or receive stolen property, it is competent to show that the accused offered one B. and his associates one dollar and a half a sack for all wheat they would take from ears and put in his barn, and thereafter on three different occasions during said month, he paid B. and his associates for wheat stolen by them and put in his barn; and the prosecution need not elect between the different deliveries, since it was all part of one continuous transaction.</p> <p>Larceny — Grand Laeceny- — Continuous Transaction. Where the purchase of stolen property on three different occasions was pursuant to one offer and all part of one transaction, it amounts to grand larceny, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2605, if the total value was over twenty-five dollars, notwithstanding there might have been a conviction of petit larceny for any one of the three acts (Gose and Fullerton, JJ„ dissenting).</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence of Accomplices — Sufficiency. A conviction of larceny by the receipt of stolen goods may be had upon the testimony of the accomplices who stole the same.</p> <p>Receiving Stolen Goods — Evidence—Ownership—Special Property. A conviction of larceny by the receipt of wheat stolen from railway cars may be had without evidence that the railway company owned the wheat, in view of Rem. & Bal. Code, §' 2303, subd. 16, providing that any one having a general or special interest shall be deemed the owner; also where it was shown that the defendant knew the wheat was stolen.</p>