Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Robert Bryant, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1927-02-24
Citations: 142 Wash. 417
Docket Number: No. 20311
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Robert Bryant, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 417–419

Head Matter:
[No. 20311.
Department One.
February 24, 1927.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Robert Bryant, Appellant.
Hermon S. Frye (John J. Sullivan, of counsel), for appellant.
Ewing D. Colvin and Eugene Meacham, for respondent.
Reported in 253 Pac. 450.

Opinion:
Mitchell, J.
The appellant was informed against, tried to a jury and convicted of the crime of grand larceny. He has appealed from a judgment and sentence entered on the verdict.
The first assignment of error is that the appellant was unduly limited in certain particulars-in the cross-examination of one of the state's witnesses. An examination of the record discloses, however, that the witness was cross-examined in the state's case in chief, or in its rebuttal in those particulars, and made apparently frank answers.
The second assignment of error is that one of the state's witnesses testified after remaining in the court room during the taking of the testimony of other witnesses, contrary to a rule of exclusion of witnesses made earlier in the trial. No objection whatever was made to his testifying on that or any other ground. Again, it does not appear that the prosecuting attorney or the witness was at all at fault in the matter. Under such circumstances, had there been objection the testimony would not have been excluded for the reason now assigned. State v. Lee Doon, 7 Wash. 308, 34 Pac. 1103.
Another assignment of error relates to alleged misconduct of the respondent's attorney in his argument to the jury. We find the record does not contain any. settlement or certification of the facts concerning the matter. Hence there is nothing for us to decide on this point.
Lastly, it is contended that the verdict and judg- meat are contrary to the evidence. There was a decided conflict in the evidence. That on behalf of the state, which we find to be substantial, is entirely sufficient to sustain the conviction. It was clearly a ease for the jury. Its verdict being supported by substantial evidence is conclusive upon us as to the facts.
Affirmed.
Mackintosh, C. J., Main, Fullerton, and French, JJ., concur.