State v. Shea

Citations

• 78 Wash. 342
• 139 P. 203
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1020

Syllabus

<p>Extortion — Evidence—Sufficiency. A conviction of grafting, by asking or receiving compensation or a reward in consideration of influencing a public officer to refuse to perform or neglect any official duty, within Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2333, is sustained where it appears that the defendant, a campaign worker for the reelection of the mayor, demanded of the prosecuting witness a contribution of $25 for the mayor’s campaign fund on the promise not to molest or arrest him, he having allowed gambling in his place of business; the mayor having the appointment of the city marshal, the police, and police justice, whose duty it is to enforce the ordinances.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Use of Interpreter — Discretion. The employment of an interpreter for a witness, who understood English sufficiently to make a corrupt agreement, is largely within the discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed except for abuse.</p> <p>Witnesses — Examination—Cross-Examination. It is not error on cross-examination to sustain objection to a question assuming facts not in evidence, and which the witness had denied.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Evidence—Other Crimes — Course of Conduct. Upon a prosecution for grafting, by soliciting contributions to a campaign fund for the reelection of a mayor, in consideration of an agreement not to molest or arrest a violator of certain ordinances, evidence of like solicitations and promises in the case of other violators of the ordinances is admissible to show a scheme, system or course of conduct implying a guilty intention.</p> <p>Criminal Law- — Appeal—Harmless Error. Upon a prosecution for grafting, by soliciting contributions to a campaign fund for the reelection of a mayor, in consideration of an agreement not to molest or arrest a violator of certain ordinances, the admission of evidence of like solicitations without any unlawful promise, is harmless error, where the jury were instructed that such a solicitation would be an innocent act when