Skip to main content

State v. Roberts

Citations

  • 100 Wash. 493
  • 171 P. 225
  • 1918 Wash. LEXIS 751

Syllabus

<p>Indictment and Information—Duplicity—Grafting. Rem. Code, § 2333, denouncing three methods of committing the offense of “grafting” does not define three crimes, and an information charging the offense in the specific language of the first clause by causing a judge- to “refuse, neglect or defer the performance of any official duty” is not objectionable as covering also the third clause relating to influencing an officer “in respect to any act ... or other proceeding.”</p> <p>Criminal Law—Trial—Election—Alternative Charges—Grafting. In a prosecution charging grafting in agreeing to either influence a judge to dismiss a criminal action or to influence a delay in the proceedings, it is not error to refuse to require an election between the two, as the charge is not in the alternative, but is positive that he agreed to do either one of two things, both denounced by the statutes.</p> <p>Obstructing Justice—Evidence—Admissibility. Upon a charge of grafting, evidence of a conversation had the day after the money was paid is admissible as showing that the accused’s attitude was the same then as that testified to on the evening before when the money was paid.</p> <p>Same—Evidence — Sufficiency. A charge of grafting is sufficiently sustained where it appears that the accused induced the payment to him of $210 upon his representation that he could get a criminal prosecution dismissed through access which he had to the trial judge.</p> <p>Criminal Law-—Appeal—Harmless Error-—Favorable to Appellant. Upon a charge of grafting under the first clause of Rem. Code, § 2333, error in instructions which defined grafting by adding; an exception not applicable to the first clause would be error favorable to the accused and not ground for reversal.</p> <p>Obstructing Justice—Elements of Offense. Under Rem. Code, § 2333, denouncing grafting by tailing money under a promise to exert influence upon a public officer, the intent to corrupt the officer; is not the gravamen of the offense.</p>

Judges: Chadwick, Ellis, Holcomb, Mount

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites 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.