State v. Morgan

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Adams

    62 Ohio St. 2d 151 (Ohio 1980)   Cited 4,256 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court's failure to specifically charge the jury on every element of an offense is not per se plain error, but could result in plain error if the failure substantially prejudiced the defendant

    In so holding we align ourselves with numerous state and federal jurisdictions. See, e.g., Claybrooks v. State, supra; State v. Morgan (1970), 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923; United States v. Singleton, supra; United States v. Rybicki, supra; United States v. Urbana (C.A. 5, 1969), 412 F.2d 1081, certiorari denied 400 U.S. 821. Compare the following cases, holding that failure to charge on an essential element constitutes plain and reversible error per se: Byrd v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1965), 342 F.2d 939; Merrill v. United States (C.A. 5, 1964), 338 F.2d 763; State v. Griffin, supra (dictum).

  2. Thomas v. State

    522 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1974)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that an indictment sufficiently alleged that the defendant acted "knowingly" when it alleged that he acted "unlawfully and feloniously"

    E.g., United States v. Bryant, 461 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Gilbert, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 433 F.2d 1172 (1970); United States v. East, 416 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Rybicki, 403 F.2d 599 (6th Cir. 1968).E.g., People v. Turner, 22 Cal.App.3d 174, 99 Cal. Rptr. 186 (1972); People v. Patterson, 2 Ill. App.3d 902, 274 N.E.2d 467 (1971); State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755 (Me. 1973); State v. Keaton, 258 Minn. 359, 104 N.W.2d 650 (1960); State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). State v. McKeough, 300 A.2d 755, 759-760 (Me. 1973).

  3. State v. Kraus

    21 Wn. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 15 times
    In Kraus, the defendant argued that the pretrial identification was the product of an impermissibly suggestive showup lineup.

    In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible error. State v. Carter, supra; State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). "The trial court's instructions permitted [Kraus] to thoroughly argue to the jury his theory of the case. No more is required.

  4. State v. Withers

    8 Wn. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 30 times
    In state v. Withers, 8 Wn.App. 123, 504 P.2d 1151 (1972), this court affirmed a conviction for possession of stolen goods.

    The quality of the identification goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of these exhibits. State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). Defendant next contends the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime of grand larceny — that he knew or should have known the property he possessed had been stolen.

  5. State v. Thach

    5 Wn. App. 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 8 times

    We think that the failure to give the instruction was not reversible error. See State v. Beard, 74 Wn.2d 335, 444 P.2d 651 (1968); Owens v. Anderson, 58 Wn.2d 448, 364 P.2d 14 (1961); State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). [3, 4] Defendant next contends that RCW 5.60.050 requires that Dillon's testimony should have been stricken and defendant's motion to dismiss, interposed at the conclusion of the state's case in chief, accordingly granted.

  6. State v. Carter

    4 Wn. App. 103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 26 times

    There has been no showing that Carter was prejudiced by the failure to properly define the necessary element of intent to rob. In the absence of prejudice, even reviewable error is not reversible. State v. Morgan, 3 Wn. App. 470, 475 P.2d 923 (1970). WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF CECIL WILSON