Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1927No. 19910. En BancPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAskren, J.

The defendant Norton and one Thomas S. Smith were jointly charged with the crime of arson, and upon trial were convicted. Norton has appealed and raised numerous assignments of error.

It is first urged that error was committed by the trial court in refusing to give an instruction to the effect that, when a building is burned, the presumption is that the fire was caused by accident or natural causes rather than by the deliberate act of the accused.

In State v. Pienick, 46 Wash. 522, 90 Pac. 645, we stated the rule to be that, “where a building is burned, the presumption is that the fire was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. PienickWashington Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Sutton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
  3. Randall v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. PicardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  2. State v. JonesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
  4. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1973
  5. State v. PfeullerWashington Supreme Court · 1932

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API