![]() Second count that between January 1, 1965, and September 1, 1967, appellant had received bribes from the owner of several downtown Seattle taverns in return for police nonharrassment of the taverns' primarily homosexual clientele. 4 Seattle Times, July 9, 1970, at 1, col. «1» See, e.g., Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Apr. ![]() The information, as amended, charged in a A former patrolman testified that he had made collections from Sylvia Harris in the Capitol Hill area, and passed the proceeds on to appellant. ![]() Devine received "payoffs" intended to assure his noninterference in the illegal gambling operations of a Sylvia Harris. ![]() Specifically, one count of the information alleges that between May 1, 1963, and January 1, 1966, Sgt. Devine was allegedly receiving bribe collections from patrolmen and passing on a portion of the proceeds to his superiors. In the midst of this drama of errant police conduct, appellant Sgt. This appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, Division One.Īppellant's trial was an outgrowth of a broad investigation of suspected police corruption in the Seattle Police Department.«1» The statement of facts in this appeal contains testimony which, if believed, suggests a significant pattern of police corruption existing at that time. Clark, Deputy, for respondent.Īppellant Devine, a former Seattle police sergeant, was convicted of two counts of bribery in the Superior Court for King County. Bayley, Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald H. Moschetto & Alfieri, by Steve Paul Moen, for appellant.Ĭhristopher T. The defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence. ROSELLINI, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.Īppeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. Particulars have amply informed the defendant of the nature of the charges against him. Minor evidentiary deviations and minute departures from the bill of particulars which do not unfairly surprise a criminal defendant are harmless errors when the information and the bill of Criminal Law - Bill of Particulars - Evidentiary Deviation - Effect. Whether a bill of particulars is furnished to a defendant in a criminal action is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will not be disturbed on review in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Criminal Law - Bill of Particulars - Discretion of Court. Equal protection guaranties are not violated by provisions of RCW 10.01.020 which proscribes a 10-year limitation upon the commencement of prosecution for criminal acts by public officials while only a 3-year period is proscribed for criminal acts by private citizens. Criminal Law - Officers - Limitation of Actions - Equal Protection. Statutes being presumed valid, the burden of proving the invalidity or unreasonableness of a legislative classification rests upon the party challenging the statute. Constitutional Law - Equal Protection - Classifications - Validity -Burden of Proof. Discretion to charge is then limited by the proof available and is not exercised capriciously. While unfettered discretion to charge an accused with either a felony or a misdemeanor based upon identical elements of proof is violative of equal protection guaranties, such unlimited prosecutorial discretion is not present when felony or misdemeanor statutes, while bearing similarities, each have their own unique elements of proof. Criminal Law - Prosecutor's Discretion To Charge - Equal Protection - Elements of Proof. 84 Wn.2d 467, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |