State v. Bettis

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Bettis

496 P.2d 715, 27 Utah 2d 373, 1972 Utah LEXIS 993

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1972

DocketNo. 12295

StatusPublished

This text of 496 P.2d 715 (State v. Bettis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bettis, 496 P.2d 715, 27 Utah 2d 373, 1972 Utah LEXIS 993 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from an insufficient funds conviction in violation of Title 76-20-11, Utah Code Annotated 1953,¹ in a jury trial. Affirmed.

Defendant says 1) there was insufficient evidence to show that he knew his account had been closed, and 2) that admission of evidence of similar instances of checks with insufficient funds was prejudicial. Neither point on appeal is well taken but is well tenuous. As to 1) above, defendant says his lack of knowledge was the result of periodic “blackouts.” The evidence amply justified the veniremen in concluding that such blackouts were ethereal fiscal “redouts” at the bank. As to 2), the evidence was admissible and nonprejudicial, particularly when the other offense was a bum check drawn on another bank in the same transaction giving rise to the instant case. Dishonesty has its upside-down virtues in many circumstances, including those involving a nervous fountain pen, leading one to a similarly characterized institution.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCICETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from an insufficient funds conviction in violation of Title 76-20-11, Utah Code Annotated 1953,¹ in a jury trial. Affirmed.

Defendant says 1) there was insufficient evidence to show that he knew his account had been closed, and 2) that admission of evidence of similar instances of checks with insufficient funds was prejudicial. Neither point on appeal is well taken but is well tenuous. As to 1) above, defendant says his lack of knowledge was the result of periodic “blackouts.” The evidence amply justified the veniremen in concluding that such blackouts were ethereal fiscal “redouts” at the bank. As to 2), the evidence was admissible and nonprejudicial, particularly when the other offense was a bum check drawn on another bank in the same transaction giving rise to the instant case. Dishonesty has its upside-down virtues in many circumstances, including those involving a nervous fountain pen, leading one to a similarly characterized institution.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCICETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 P.2d 715, 27 Utah 2d 373, 1972 Utah LEXIS 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bettis-utah-1972.