Title: State v. Reid
Citation: 444 P.2d 155, 74 Wash. 2d 250
Docket Number: 35760
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: August 1, 1968

74 Wn.2d 250 (1968) 444 P.2d 155 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JAMES REID, Appellant.[*] No. 35760. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. August 1, 1968. Richard M. Ishikawa, for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal). Charles O. Carroll, Patricia G. Harber, and Jerry Brian Riess, for respondent. WILLIAMS, J.[] Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of the crime of second degree burglary. From the judgment and sentence entered thereon,[1] he has appealed and assigns as error the insufficiency of the information by which he was charged and the trial court's giving instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The charging part of the information provided as follows: That portion of instruction No. 1 about which defendant complains reads as follows: That portion of instruction No. 2 about which defendant complains reads as follows: Defendant contends that the defect in the information and instructions Nos. 1 and 2 is in the use of the words "with intent to commit a crime therein." He argues that by not identifying the crime he intended to commit when he allegedly broke and entered, results in the information and instructions being too indefinite to apprise him of the accusation against him. Defendant's trial counsel (different counsel than on appeal) neither before nor during the trial moved for a more definite statement, nor was the question of the insufficiency of the information raised on defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the state's case. Neither was an exception taken to the giving of instructions Nos. 1 or 2. [1, 2] Having failed to move for a more definite statement, defendant cannot now on appeal for the first time complain that he was not sufficiently advised of the nature of the charge upon which he was tried. State v. Fairfax, 42 *252 Wn.2d 777, 258 P.2d 1212 (1953). Likewise, by his failure to except to the giving of instructions Nos. 1 and 2, they became the law of the case. State v. Queen, 73 Wn.2d 706, 440 P.2d 461 (1968). The defendant assigns error to the court's giving instruction No. 3. That portion of the instruction about which he complains reads as follows: Defendant contends that the instruction is unconstitutional in that the presumption created is made conclusive unless met by him, thus shifting the burden of proof to him to prove his innocence. This contention was squarely met and decided adversely to defendant's position in the recent case of State v. Durning, 71 Wn.2d 675, 430 P.2d 546 (1967). No exception was taken to instruction No. 3 and it, therefore, became the law of the case. State v. Queen, supra. The judgment is affirmed. FINLEY, C.J., WEAVER, HUNTER, and McGOVERN, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 444 P.2d 155. [] Judge Williams is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution. [1] The unusual delay in hearing this appeal following defendant's conviction and sentence on September 27, 1960 was occasioned by his twice being confined in a state mental institution and the time involved in the hearings incident thereto and as related to his appeal.