recognizing and applying doctrine where “[t]he persons present at this conference had a mutual interest in defending against the allegations of [the] complaint”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing and applying doctrine where “[t]he persons present at this conference had a mutual interest in defending against the allegations of [the] complaint”
- holding that R.C.W. 5.60.-060(2) adopts the common law of privilege.
- bribery prosecution; "to convict" instruction omitted the essential element that applications were pending before the allegedly bribed public official
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Olson, J.
(dissenting)—I cannot agree with the conclusion of the majority upon instruction No. 5, quoted in the opinion.
Considered alone, this instruction specifically charges the jury that to convict it must find that the action of defendant which was to be influenced by the payment, was his action upon applications for extension of two numbered timber bills of sale. These were in evidence and no others were before the jury. No juror could have had any doubt about the applications for the extension of these specific timber contracts being a pending matter.
All of the law cannot be stated in one instruction. Several specific instructions refer to the burden upon the state to prove that defendant asked for money upon the understanding that his actions within his official capacity as an employee of the state, in the conduct of the business of the state, would be influenced. Other instructions adequately cover the matters urged in defense.
The instructions, considered together as the jury was bound to consider them, cannot mean or be taken to refer to other than current pending business of the state.
*823 Perhaps the questioned instruction could have been phrased more aptly. Its form, is not approved necessarily. But, in my opinion, it sufficiently defined the requirements of the state’s proof, and, in any event, defendant could not have been prejudiced by it.
The judgment on the verdict on counts I and II should be affirmed.
Weaver, J., concurs with Olson, J.